Archive for category: October Millet

I found Mark Ellingsen’s essay on Lutheranism to be both informative and fascinating. I certainly identify with Mark’s early acknowledgement that Lutheran is a title, a label attached to his faith by critics of the movement early on. The followers of Joseph Smith came to be known as the “Mormonites” or the “Mormons.” Unfortunately the latter title stuck, and we as a people have been stuck with it for just short of two hundred years.

As recently as the Church’s October 2021 general conference in Salt Lake City, one of the senior leaders of the church put it this way: “Mormon [a prophet-leader in the Book of Mormon] is not our Savior. Mormon did not suffer and bleed and die for us.” Joseph Smith said it well: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven [1 Corinthians 15:1-4]; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” This is why we are seeking to be known as the Church of Jesus Christ.

Members of my faith would generally not speak in terms of the Confessional and the Pietistic facets of the faith in the same way that Mark does about Lutheranism (pages 1-3). We do have, however, what I think is a close approximation to those distinctions: the difference between the doctrine (orthodoxy) of the faith and the spirituality or daily practice (orthopraxy) of the people in everyday life. First of all, for Latter-day Saints correct doctrine or theology is crucial. The correctness of a teaching or writing is determined by holy scripture and by what is taught (by way of scriptural commentary or interpretation) by our senior Church leaders.

The fifteenth President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008), said: “I have spoken before about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods.” As to the power of correct doctrine in the minds and hearts of the people, another prominent leader within our faith, Boyd K. Packer (1924-2015), taught: “True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel.”

As to Pietism, Latter-day Saints would be prone to speak of an individual’s personal spirituality. The depth of one’s spirituality is a result of such practices as personal purity, daily personal prayer, daily scripture study, regular church attendance, partaking weekly of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, fasting from bread and water—all of which bring one into closer communion with the Savior. Further, we believe that God’s barometer of righteousness is the heart. The extent to which a woman or a man is drawing closer to Christ may be discerned largely by how that individual manifests what the Apostle Paul called the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25), an expanding love and concern for people all about us.

Latter-day Saints are taught repeatedly of the importance of both sides of the equation. For example, a person can have a profound depth of understanding of the gospel, even be a brilliant biblical scholar or theologian, and yet be a complete jerk, one who is proud, self-seeking, and almost blind to the needs and feelings of others. On the other hand, one can be a marvelous example of Christlike service to everyone within reach, but at the same time know very little about the doctrine of Christ. That is, they do not possess a reason for the hope within them (1 Peter 3:15). In other words, they are severely limited when it comes to defending the faith or presenting a message that is as stimulating to the mind as it is soothing to the heart. Striking a proper balance here is extremely difficult. During my years as dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, I sensed that I had two interrelated responsibilities: (1) to assist, encourage, and provide support for 70 full-time faculty members in their study, research, and publication efforts; and, at the same time, (2) to caution them regularly to never yield to academic arrogance.

In the fourth paragraph of Mark’s paper (page 2), he mentions that the Confessional side of Lutheranism “has more of an appreciation of the Sacramental heritage than does Pietism, and it may emphasize salvation by grace more than Pietism does.” This expression stumped me. I would think that the principle that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone would be especially emphasized among those striving for greater piety. Mustn’t Pietism be built upon a complete reliance on the merits, mercy, and grace of Jesus Christ? Or is it that that the doctrine of the grace of God is taught and emphasized more within the Confessional strand than the Pietistic. I’m sure the answer is simple and that I’m missing something, but I would appreciate a brief clarification from Mark, if possible.

In paragraph 11 (page 4), Mark mentions that Luther “was open to invoking angels and Mary (whom he called the Mother of God). . . . All the Saints may pray for us, he claimed.” I really should know more of the life and ministry of Martin Luther than I do, but I am interested in Luther’s attachment to Mary, the mother of Jesus. I would be surprised to learn that, of all the things Luther opposed or rejected within the Roman Catholic Church, one of them was not a rejection of an overmuch veneration of Mary. Or did that come decades or centuries after Luther’s time? Most Evangelical Protestants or Mainline Christians that I know today would not be comfortable with Mariology. How would most Lutherans feel about this emphasis today? How would they feel about Luther’s spiritual attraction to Mary?

In paragraph 13 (page 5), Mark indicates that “even embracing theosis would raise no problems from the Evangelical Catholic wing of Lutheranism, as Luther himself seems sometimes to have endorsed the concept.” This was not new to me, since one of the doctrinal topics we pursued as a part of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue (2000-2022) was theosis or deification, a variation of which is a belief held by Latter-day Saints. As a part of our readings for that particular dialogue, we asked Veli-Matti-Karkkainen at Fuller Seminary to lead our two-day discussion. We read Velli’s short book, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (2004), as well as some writings by Latter-day Saint scholars on the topic.

It was while reading that book that I encountered statements from Martin Luther on the topic of theosis. I have two questions: (1) Do we know to what extent Luther had interactions with Eastern Orthodoxy and their perspectives on deification? and (2) How would the doctrine of theosis be understood or received by the typical Lutheran woman in the pew or the everyday Lutheran man on the street? How would people in the congregation react if the local Lutheran pastor were to quote “If one knows himself, he will know God and knowing God will become like God” (Clement of Alexandria) or “The word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods” (Athanasius)?

On page 8 Professor Ellingsen addresses the Lutheran belief in humanity’s fallen and lost condition as a result of Adam and Eve’s actions in Eden, as well as one’s individual sinfulness. I am in complete agreement that it is absolutely necessary for an individual to understand the nature and impact of the Fall (the problem) in order to grasp the need for redemption and reconciliation through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (the solution). One must know the seriousness of the malady in order to fully appreciate the Medication.

At the same time, if all that a person ever hears in church or reads in religious literature is how broken, warped, twisted, and evil the members of the human race are, won’t some individuals (maybe many) simply give up, throw in the towel, and conclude that they are not spiritually capacitated to go to heaven hereafter? I know that the solution is to teach them of the life, ministry, atoning work of the Savior and His grace, but what about those who simply miss that part of the sermon or were texting at the time the pastor or teacher was glorying in the Lord’s Atonement? What if those who are told repeatedly that they are totally depraved never return to church or never become involved in mid-week Bible study?

Please forgive my ramblings. I have just encountered so many men and women through the years who choose to disassociate themselves with organized religion. Today they are called “the nones.” They insist that rather than being elated about the “good news” of the Christian message, they feel they have been fed an ever-present diet of “bad news” relative to their spiritual condition. (By the way, I don’t believe the answer is to deliver the good news like Robert Schuller or Joel Osteen might do.) Is there a more effective way, a more hopeful way to teach the plight of fallen humanity and the need for a Savior in a manner that listeners or students do not feel hopeless, do not see themselves as being beyond the pale of saving grace? There must be.

I appreciate very much Mark Ellingsen’s excellent distillation of Lutheranism. It has broadened my perspective, corrected some misconceptions, and prompted me to do some serious reading.