Pastor's KeystrokesPastors' Keystrokes
"Pastors’ Keystrokes” is the title for the St. Paul pastors’ blog. The title is an intentional play on words between the Office of the Holy Ministry being called “the Office of the Keys” and their typing the blog’s content into their computers. Referring to the pastoral Office with the term “keys” has a rich biblical background, such as in Matthew 16:19. (Pictured as they are on this page from the window in St. Paul’s senior pastor’s study, one key usually represents the binding of sins in excommunication, and the other key usually represents the loosing or forgiving of sins in absolution.) Originating in the 20th century, the word “keystrokes” refers to pressing an input device such as on a computer, the word in many ways increasingly replacing words related to “typing” with the rise of the computer and the decline of the typewriter.
Why Do What We Do?
Written by Pastor Nuckols Wednesday, 19 May 2010 09:41
Why God has ordered forgiveness in such a manner that He indeed forgives it, but has not yet completely swept it out, destroyed it or buried it, is a mystery. God could, if He indeed desired to do so, bring the one forgiven into immediate perfection by act of sheer power, but He doesn’t. When God accepts a man and endows him with the Holy Spirit He does not destroy the evil within him in an instant. Instead, like a dead twig that is grafted into a living tree, God designs man to grow and to quicken to the increasing mastery of evil. “. . . while He pours out His purity on us at once, through the Word and faith, and, in addition, renews our hearts through the Holy Ghost, He does this in such a way that this work of purification is not completed all at once, but He daily labors with us and purifies us so that we become continuously purer and purer.”[1] Sin certainly remains as an element in our lives, even though its domination has been broken by the Spirit, and faith recognizing its fearful danger hates it accordingly.
As a result of the fact that the believer is always “dead and alive at the same time,” it follows that there is a difference in the motives that drive him to think, speak, and act in a manner that is holy. Scripture shows us a great number of such motives, however, they can all be reduced to two great types, that of joyful liberty and that of bitter compulsion. Where the recognition of the work of the Spirit is not complete or is not considered seriously, the answer to the question, “What are the characteristics of Lutheran ethics?” can only be legal prescriptions and the enforced efforts to fulfill such regulations. But, where there is justification by grace through faith engendered by the Holy Spirit, there, in place of the Law, is “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). And, in addition, in place of compulsion, there is a glad readiness to do God’s will. It is impossible for any code of rules to prescribe down to the minutest details what shall be done in each new situation that may arise in the continually altering circumstances of life.
For example, in the care of souls, pastors are continually confronted with entirely new problems, and with the most momentous decisions for which he can nowhere find any specific written guidance. However, at such times, a freedom that reaches its determinations and decisions only according to the ability of our natural reflections, inclinations and general attitude is even less satisfactory. Therefore, only revealed from above, a guidance through the Holy Spirit by the life-giving law of the Spirit; where constraint and freedom have become an indissolubly unity, that is, where the service of God has become perfect freedom. This means, of course, that man becomes completely dependent on God, and therefore, all human crutches and all self-dependence has been taken away. Only in the continual hearing and obedience of the revealed Word does the believer receive guidance from eternity, and for eternity. The same Spirit that assures us of our adoption as sons is the guide of our actions. “For every one who so lives as to secure for himself all graces before God, is well pleased with spiritual purity, consequently it is much easier for him to resist carnal uncleanness and the Spirit instructs him in this faith, how he shall avoid all evil thoughts and everything that is unchaste. For faith in the divine favor, as it is continuous and always active, does not cease to admonish those who possess it concerning what is pleasing and is displeasing to God.”[2]
There has always been a danger of emphasizing faith over life, or life over faith. Both much be taught with equal emphasis. Whoever makes the doctrine of sanctification the central question and at the same time carries on a polemic against the doctrine of justification should clearly understand how quickly the Church is led by such a theology to the brink of a pragmatic or enthusiastic abyss. Whoever reproaches the doctrine of justification by grace through faith too vehemently as being, a one-sided fourth of the Gospel, will make the emptiest explanation of Baptism, and then, in the teaching of sanctification will inevitably run off the wrong track. On the other hand, when the Gospel is preached merely as a forensic judgment that has been pronounced on us without regard to the sanctification that the Holy Spirit brings, then Christianity becomes inclined to verge into a meditation on sinfulness that evaporates into a comfortable feeling that sin is no longer harmful because it is forgiven, and so the Gospel finally becomes sentimentalized. However, it is really the message of the alien righteousness that is ours from Christ that daily establishes and supports our relation to God. This is the source from which the much desired activity alone can spring. It is as the Church of the Word that Christianity has the promise that it shall become the Church of deeds.
Be not proud, but afraid! If there is not a continual return to the humbling word of the cross there will inevitably be a shallow, optimistic confusion of spirits and the Holy Spirit, of emotion and faith, of self-control and self-denial. Men confuse the spiritual individual with one “full of the Spirit,” a new conduct with “renewal from above,” and a peace between nations with “peace on earth.” For without justification, Christian ethics will become neo-Protestant or “American,” sanctification of the emotions will turn into romanticism, the “renewal of thought” result in a monistic philosophy of immanence. The Kingdom of God will be secularized into the idea of an “alcohol-free, world republic, a communistic realm of peace, or a League of Nations on a republican basis”[3]
By striking this balance, we are prevented from exalting religious feelings over sound doctrine, and from placing moral growth above the gift and promise of God. And again, we are banned from esteeming one’s own conversion above the Sacrament, or deeming one’s own separatistic notions greater than the Confessions of the Church. In other words, the more man truly holds fast to the “God-for-us,” the more “our-being-for-God” grows and is strengthened. Therefore, the Gospel must be protected as carefully against legalism as it is against antinomianism, for an active pride is as dangerous for faith as the laziness that shirks every task. Further, the battle against dead works is just as important as the battle against dead faith, and it is our justification that robs all conduct of its appearance of holiness. Rather, it is our sanctification that guards men from sinning against grace. It is the promise of forgiveness that gives the basis of action, direction and power to all conduct, and likewise, the Christianity of action prevents pure doctrine from becoming mere talk.
[1] Koberle, Adolph. The Quest for Holiness. (Augsburg Publishing House: Minneapolis 1938), 152.
[2] Ibid, p 122.
[3] Ibid. p 251-252.
Why Me?
Written by Pastor Nuckols Thursday, 13 May 2010 13:34
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Galatians 4:4-5
Why did you adopt me? What made you choose me rather than someone else? What did you see in me that pleased you?
I need affirmation from you to know that I have value, or that I have worth. I need to know what it is about me that evokes love from you. And ultimately, why you will continue to choose me when I am very ugly, or worse yet, when I am convinced in my mind of my own unworthiness.
Watching the world’s ways, and experiencing its harsh ‘pick of the litter’ mentality, it is very evident that choice comes only with the significance or appeal of the person to be chosen. If the individual fails to meet the expectations of the beholder’s eyes or falls short of any worthy long-term value, then that person is written off, and the chooser’s efforts are reserved for another more worthy of his affections and commitment. Whenever someone brings joy and pleasure to the beholder, devotion and accolades are awarded to the beloved, of that there is no doubt.
With our heavenly Father, His reception and adoption is quite different. He does not choose as man does, for He chooses according to His promise and not according to what value or lack thereof is seen. There is no earthly reason for His adoption of you as His child. Even if we can point to the many attributes that differentiate us from others, deeming us as more attractive, we ignore the obvious and deny our earthly father, Adam. Therefore, we are chosen by God because of the One who was joined to our flesh and joined to this world as we are. He was conceived without sin, and yet every moment of every day of His life did He live in perfect obedience and faith for us.
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.” Being under the law, we operate and function in an understandable and logical system of the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of choice. Which leads us back to why would our God choose us? The problem with our logic in its vain attempt to have an object unto which to point as being the reason for our adoption is that it is flawed in its understanding of motive. Being self-centered, as we are, we endeavor to find the reason from within ourselves and not outside ourselves. This is precisely why it is so flawed to find comfort from within and not from the One born for us under the same law which condemns us, yet is fulfilled in Him.
Our heavenly Father revectors our faith away from our self and to Jesus; the One “born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.” Our justification for Father’s choice does not lie within us but by virtue and reason of His Son for us. Being God’s child centers on His begetting our souls because of Christ, and just as an earthly son or daughter cannot become more of their parent’s child by their behavior, nor less their parent’s child by their lack of pleasing behavior. So it is with you and me as His children. We are His children because He has fathered us and made us His own through Jesus. Therefore, we do not fear, but rather are confident in God’s choice and not in our attractiveness or merit-ability. For He is our Father and we are His dear children joined to Him through the One born for us and never to be parted.
Our Raiment--The Church's Raiment
Written by Pastor Nuckols Monday, 03 May 2010 17:58
Given the milieu that the church in America finds herself, and especially the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS), battling with not only the ever present challenges of the sinners who make her up, but also the more recent encroachment of the postmodern rebirth of gnosticism, the church has a great need to identify herself as the bride of Christ and her role as the distributor of His gifts in this American context. However, pastors and people are becoming frustrated with the definition of success in
“Thank God,” Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles of 1537—his theological testament in the face of threatening divisions in his own camp—“a seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd [John 10:3]. So children pray, ‘I believe in one holy Christian church.’ Its holiness does not consist of surplices, tonsures, albs, or other ceremonies of theirs [the papists] which they have invented over and above the Holy Scriptures, but it consists of the Word of God and true faith.”[1] Unfortunately, such a simple definition of the church did not suffice for Luther’s time nor for subsequent generations, especially today within the LC-MS in her American context. As Heinrich Bornkamm reflected upon this definition he said, “It cannot be denied that theological research has always viewed this seven-year-old child with some envy or perhaps with a bit of doubt.”[2] How very difficult it is for the church and her pastors to bury her identity in Christ and in His gifts to her, her raiment that is bestowed upon her. For since she herself has been buried with Christ, she has victory during her pilgrimage in this world, and her identity is wrapped up into Christ, but that death is one that is daily, and regularly being fought. She is at the same time both saint and sinner, and her struggle mirrors that described by
“I don’t know how to minister anymore,” the senior pastor of a flagging mainline church lamented. “There was a time when faithfully preaching and teaching God’s word was enough. But no matter how much time I spend preparing and working to communicate the gospel, it just doesn’t seem to make any difference. And I know that I’m not alone, either. Most of my colleagues are just biding their time until they can retire.” He looked down for a moment and then wearily continued, “It’s not that we don’t believe anymore, not even that we don’t care. It’s that we simply don’t know what to do and we’re tired—I’m tired—of beating my head against a brick wall.”[3]
Succumbing to this temptation leads to the disrobing of the garments of salvation for the shame of nakedness in order to seemingly attain a new, dynamic and effective way of being the church, and attracting a new generation while reenergizing both the church and her servants. Unfortunately, this “spiritual spark” with its short-term effectiveness, has a long-term recovery. It ignites the passions of God’s people, but doesn’t satisfy the deep longings with which they are wrestling. The Bride reasons that jettisoning her God-given robe, she will find true freedom from the antiquities of her past, being faithful to her Lord and faithful to her calling as the light-bearer in this world of darkness. Yet, in reality, she only becomes truly exposed, being seen for what she has been redeemed, and as a result, finds nothing to cover her shame, and her nakedness.
The church, though made up of flesh and blood and though fed by Christ’s flesh and blood, struggles not against flesh and blood per se, “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:12) She grapples with an alien identity of Christ’s righteousness that is not her own, but rather is given to her and pronounced upon her, thus, the popular anecdote applies quite succinctly, you can take the girl out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the girl. Therefore, this girl, this Gomer, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church must be constantly nourished by the word of God, for neither the universal church nor the local congregation is ever perfect as they exist in history; “instead, they are always in a state of becoming (Kirche im Werden), that is, they are incomplete and even sinful until the end of time.”[4]
In order for the bride of Christ to cling tenaciously to her robe of righteousness, she must know what her identity is with this robe, and she must know what her identity is without this robe. She must revisit her “roots,” and focus intently upon the wedding feast that is held in her honor. Luther did much in assisting the church with her identity crisis that occurred in conjunction with her reformation in the 16th century. Once again, the church must daily be defined by the One who bought her back from slavery, and by the One who alone has clothed her nakedness.
As Christ’s bride hearkens unto His voice, whose is the Lord of the Church, her identity will remain in the gifts that He so lovingly bestows upon her. Man has always lived in a spiritually confusing and hungry age. He has always sought to make sense out of his life, looking for meaning, looking for connection to something greater than himself. Michael Foss’ commentary on the faith of the individual typifies the view of many Christians today who deny the potency of the means of grace.
“As a person’s experience of God begins to permeate all of life, faith becomes a way of being in the world—a way of life—not merely a way of thinking or believing. When that happens, people are open to consider theology as reflection upon the experience of faith. Theology, after all, is lived faith seeking to understand itself. Faith as a way of life with God clearly involves a way of thinking about God and life. That’s theology. It follows and then informs the experience of God. In the world in which we live, thinking about God cannot be separated from the experience of God. . . It is not so much an abdication of doctrine as an embrace of experience.”[5]
Such a view of the gifts of Christ given to His bride focuses not on the gifts, but rather on how the bride perceives their effect upon herself. Comfort and solace is not produced by such introspective self-examination, but what is produced is only doubt, fear, and then either despair or the invention of some other source of comfort, which is idolatry. Luther would never have his people focus on what is seen or felt, for there is no consistency nor any applicable hope to be found in those mirery pits.
[1] Theodore G. Tappert (ed.), The Book of
[2] Martin H. Bertram (trans.), Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther’s World of Thought (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), p. 134.
[3] Michael W. Foss. Power Surge. (
[4] AE. Vol. 39, p. XVIII.
[5] Power Surge. p. 180-181.
The Mystery of Marriage
Written by Pastor Nuckols Friday, 23 April 2010 10:30
Marriage is the publicly acknowledged joining of a man and a woman together. But marriage is not only the public and ceremonial ratification of their mutual consent. That is indeed essential but it is more than a contract between two people. It involves an admittance and entrance into an estate, a civil reality above and beyond the mutual consent and/or even the loving commitment of the man and the woman involved. It has always been held that the estate of marriage is divinely ordained and thus especially God-pleasing. It is simply not the case that marriage was looked upon as a kind of necessary evil, a hedge against lust.
The foundation for the idea of marriage as an estate ordained by God, however, is much more positive. It is to be found in such passages as the account of creation in which God blesses the man and the woman and enjoins that they “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) and also the subsequent ratification of the creation account by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6, “Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” The estate of marriage has a positive purpose. The two become one flesh, a substantial unity in difference. The estate is to be a blessing to the married couple, to protect against the vagaries of passion, feeling, and sexual waywardness. Note the verbiage from The Lutheran Agenda:
Wherefore those who purpose to enter this holy estate should do so with a profound sense of the seriousness of the obligations they are about to assume, duly and devoutly weighing what Holy Scripture teaches concerning husbands and wives, and bearing in mind that the vow and covenant once made may not be broken. Our Savior has declared that a man shall forsake his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, for they twain shall be one flesh. By His Apostles He has instructed those who enter into wedlock to cherish mutual esteem and love; to bear with each other’s infirmities and weaknesses; to comfort each other in sickness, trouble, and sorrow; in honesty and industry to provide for each other and for their household in temporal things which pertain to God; and to live together as the heirs of the grace of life.[1]
And, of course, the estate of marriage is concerned to foster a family life conducive to the raising of children. Society has a tremendous stake in this. The law in its civil use is one expression of this concern.
If the church is at all concerned to restore some sanity to social life in an age of rampant sexual irresponsibility and egocentrism she would do well to pay some heed to what the Scriptures have to say about the estate of marriage as an application of the civil use of law that flows from it. Attacks on marriage are nothing new. It has always been rather a precarious venture and the butt of much ridicule, satire, and cynicism.
The world says of marriage, “Brief is the joy, lasting the bitterness.” Let them say what they please, what God wills and creates is bound to be a laughingstock to them. The kind of joy and pleasure they have outside of wedlock they will be most accurately aware of, I suspect, in their consciences. To recognize the estate of marriage is something quite different from merely being married. He who is married but does not recognize the estate of marriage cannot continue in wedlock without bitterness, drudgery, and anguish. He will inevitably complain and blaspheme like the pagans and blind irrational men. But he who recognizes the estate of marriage will find therein delight, love, and joy without end . . .[3]
Luther continues: “We err in that we judge the work of God according to our own desire. This is why we are unable to recognize his works and persist in making evil that which is good, and regarding as bitter that which is pleasant. Nothing is so bad, not even death itself, but what it becomes sweet and tolerable if only I know and am certain that it is pleasing to God.[4]
Like other reformers, Luther is reluctant to recommend divorce even when it is allowed. The basis for his reluctance is the model of two kingdoms and two governments which
One of the continuing dilemmas for the human family is the difficulty so many encounter in sustaining marital and family relationships. God’s intention for marriage is clear. While not everyone is expected to marry, those who do must understand “that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’. So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (
The stable and strong committed marriage of one of
Finally, a note by
God’s word is actually inscribed on one’s spouse. When a man looks at his wife as if she were the only woman on earth, and when a woman looks at her husband as if he were the only man on earth; yes, if not king or queen, not even the sun itself sparkles any more brightly and lights up your eyes more than your own husband or wife, then right there you are face to face with God speaking. God promises to you, your wife, or husband, actually gives your spouse to you, saying: “The man shall be yours; the woman shall be yours. I am please beyond measure! Creatures earthly and heavenly are jumping for joy.” For there is no jewelry more precious than God’s Word; through it you come to regard your spouse as a gift of God and, as long as you do that, you will have no regrets.[7]
Who or What is a god?
Written by Pastor Nuckols Monday, 12 April 2010 11:49
What is the meaning of the unceasing alternation between ascent and descent, rise and decline? Does all this have a purpose and a goal? What about justice in a world in which the strong always conquer and disregard all laws? Is it not perhaps, after all, a game in which God alone participates arbitrarily by loading His musket, aiming at the nations, and gloating as they topple? Is not this God a hardhearted, coldly planning, or perhaps plan-less fate? We often get this impression when probing into the meaning of occurrences in our own life as in that of nations. And how many have shouted their accusations against this unknown and unknowable Master of the universe and against this absurd and incongruous course of life!
It would be appalling if our knowledge of God were confined to the realization that He is the power of life in everything that lives. For everything, the sublime and the beautiful as well as the vile and the ugly, owes its existence to this power. God’s omnipotence preserves the good and the evil; by the mere bestowal of life it permits the one to grow better and purer, the other to become always viler. Both good and evil propagate themselves without end in this world. Even the ungodly owe their existence to God’s power. Why does He not withhold life from them? Why does He not put an end to suffering, war, and death, which could not endure without His omnipotent hand? Why does He not force all men on the right path if they themselves are unable to find it? Why does He permit them to stray hopelessly in gloom and despair? Questions and riddles without end!
Small wonder that Luther declared that this God, who dwells in everything that lives and whom he beheld there as clearly as ever poet and philosopher did, is a hidden God, a God to whom no path of our philosophical contemplation leads us. If we assume that we can comprehend Him in a discordant and contradictory life, in which He is indeed hidden, then our reflections must carry us into insoluble contradictions; to faith there is no alternative but imprecation and blasphemy. The human mind can snap because of this question and be driven into insanity. All profound thinkers who skirted the rim of this precipice have either known or experienced this (Goethe, Hölderlin, Nietzsche).
Only one, God Himself, can lead the way out of this maze of questions. It is futile for reason to remonstrate and rebel. But does this mean that we should lay our hands on our laps and patiently await enlightenment? By no means. We must learn to put the question concerning God correctly. This is imperative. Then the comprehension of the answer will be easier. The fact that our attempt to apprehend God in nature and in history as the totality of life leads us into a blind alley need not be fruitless. If this quest carried us adrift, then the mistake did not occur at the end but at the beginning. Then we must retrace our steps and seek a correct starting point. Did we actually look for God when we sought Him in the aggregate of life? Or were we not groping rather for a concept of the ultimate unity of the world? To find the coherent elements of the world is the never-ending task of the philosopher, but this is not the core of the question concerning God. To trace the living world to its ultimate cause and to deduce a philosophical system from this, and to believe in God, are two radically different matters. The former stems from our strong urge and thirst for knowledge and cognition. But the result of this philosophical investigation still has no bearing on my attitude and my conduct of life. One may have the most varying views on this Primary Unity in all life; one may speak about God or about a Primal Power, the Universe, Fate, Primal Substance, Primal Spirit — all this is immaterial to, and without any effect on, our heart, our conscience, and our conduct in daily life. On the other hand, everything in life does depend on the question whether I truly believe in God. A genuine faith in God must transform me into another man. The real question concerning God is not only a question asked by us but also one addressed to us. The one is a question of cognition; the other, a question of life. The two can become one only if I know both. Here true faith in God is greater than any power of human thinking. In faith an answer to the question about the ultimate cause and origin of the world is also included; but the philosophical concept of origin contains no answer for my conduct of life, no duties and obligations, no help, and no comfort. Therefore we must learn to formulate the question concerning God correctly.
Luther often put and answered this question in a wonderfully informal, human, and undogmatic manner, particularly in his well-known explanation of the First Commandment (Large Catechism). “What does it mean to have a God, or what is God?” Answer: “God is that to which I must look for all that is good and to whom I must flee in every need.” This simple sentence, from which one could evolve Luther’s whole theology and his view of the essence of all religions, is far different from most concepts of God. We would perhaps answer this question thus: God is the World Cause or Life Absolute, the Unfathomable Power which supports and directs life and the world, or the Demanding Will which I hear in my conscience. We find nothing of this in Luther’s biblical statement: “That to which I must look for all that is good and to which I must flee in every need.” Man places his trust in various things in life. The one believes that, after all, money rules the world and conducts himself accordingly. Whether or not he possesses, in addition, a dim and hazy perception of God is of little practical importance. The other probably relies, in the end, on the gifts of body or mind with which he is endowed and glories in his own powers, which will see him through every difficulty. Others find what they consider complete security in the position and reputation they have acquired. Many trust in their luck, in their good blood, in the high respect in which their family is held, in their education; and many gain strength and confidence in life from the fact that they are citizens of their country. If we sincerely searched our hearts and candidly confessed the real source of our confidence and trust, what amazingly heterogeneous things would come to light! How rarely will a person be able to say: I place my reliance solely on God!
“To whatever your heart cleaves and On whatever it relies, that is really your god.” Thus idols are not confined to heathendom. God and idol lie in such close proximity in our hearts that they are often hardly distinguishable. They are identifiable, however, by the true mainstay in our life.
Accordingly, having God means: “To possess something on which the heart places all its reliance.” How does this harmonize? We realize that it transcends the bounds of our imagination. No concept, no image, no metaphors of our fantasy are adequate for an undivided and coherent view of God. And yet the two views concerning God belong together. It is inconsequential whether I can make many profound statements about God. It is of the greatest importance, however, for me to know that He is my God, that He is at my side, a God on whom I can depend implicitly at all times. Whoever has failed to understand this difference can never have an inkling about a true belief in God. For to believe in God does not mean to believe that there is a God but to believe that He is my God. This is the very simple difference between semblance and truth. Even pious pagans perceived this. They were fully convinced of the power of their gods and commended themselves to their protection by prayer and by sacrifice. There is no religion in this world in which man does not seek protection and security from his god, no matter how much he fears this god.
In order to express the presence and the revelation of God in Christ, Luther was especially fond of calling Jesus the Word of God. That is a metaphor taken from the beginning of the Gospel According to
Luther was so fond of calling Christ the Word of God because there is no more exact agency for self-communication than words. They reveal one’s spirit, one’s mind. Each of our words betrays us, intentionally or unintentionally; for it emanates from our innermost being. And even if we use words to conceal our thoughts, they reveal part of our character, namely, the ability to be untruthful. Word and character are inseparable; we even think in words. Our words are merely our character exposed to view. And Luther wanted to express this most intimate communion between the heart of God and the spirit of Jesus Christ when he adopted the term “Word of God.” At the same time he utilized the singular might of the unpretentious word as a metaphor for the wonderful might of Christ. A word is the weakest thing in the world, a mere breath of air — and yet it is the mightiest. Words can affect the whole human race, decide the fate of nations, introduce new eras. Similarly unprepossessing, insignificant, and seemingly defeated, Jesus stands among the rulers of the world, and yet, what power has issued from Him, visibly and invisibly! And as words not only reflect the mind, but contain it as their real substance, so Jesus’ words and His whole person are not only a doctrine concerning God; God’s grace is not merely proclaimed in them, but it is also imparted by them. In Him God is near us, clearly and definitely. He demands a decision, just as every word spoken by man demands a yes or a no; we must accept it or reject it, take it at its face value or call it into question. Thus Christ is not only the bearer of a message; He is also the personified question of God, the question which asks us whether we want to put our trust in Him and accept Him as our God. At the same time He is the personified pledge of God, the pledge which assures us that we may rely on Him for every good and flee to Him in every need.
To be sure, this requires courage. Death, sin, need, and pain are a Christian’s lot as well as that of any other person. Therefore even for the believing soul the profound mystery of God always arises anew from the depths. The enigma of the incomprehensible power of God that holds the life of nature and of history in its hand and keeps it in stormy motion again and again forces the question to our lips: Is the God who demands our trust and pledges His help, which we often fail to see amidst our sorrow and tribulation, not just a dream, a great self-delusion of man? Luther applied the old military term Anfechtung to this distress of the heart. For these are not merely questions of weary doubts and misgivings; they are attacks of an enemy skilled in fighting (Fechten). For our comfort Luther informed us that in this respect we are only sharing the experiences of Christ, who emptied this cup to the dregs, and that in this way God purifies and refines our faith and our trust in Him. “I did not learn my theology at one time, but I had to meditate deeper and deeper. Then my Anfechtungen carried me thither. For this cannot be acquired without experience.” This teaches us — especially young people — to exercise patience when the question concerning God staggers us and can silence our saucy accusations and hasty renunciation. Because Luther had experienced the blessing of doubts and Anfechtung, he called them “God’s embraces.” And faith must transform the terrifying aspects of these painful embraces of the hidden God into the gracious countenance of the revealed God.
Christian faith encompasses and overcomes the immense tension between the glowing life of God in all phenomena of nature and of history and the kindly disposed God, whose heart we may behold mirrored in Christ. The more thoroughly we understand that the question concerning God involves a dual view and not a shift from one point of view to another, the easier will it be to bear the intellectual contradictions which reason continues to present. For the more penetrating eye of faith these contradictions dissolve by themselves. For faith asks for no definite formula concerning God; it knows that it can reach into mystery and darkness and there find a hand which will hold and guide it.
More Articles...
Page 2 of 6
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>
