Post-Reformation musing
Just over a week ago we celebrated the festival of the reformation, that is, the anniversary of Martin Luther's nailing of the 95 Theses. In honor of the holiday, we watched the 1953 movie of "Martin Luther" with the day-school catechism class. I know that its historicity is not perfect in light of modern scholarship (yet better than the 2003 film). In any case, I was struck by a number of things. Luther was attacked primarily on practical matters. The sale of indulgences was viewed as a matter of practice without doctrinal consequences. We know that their sale was no matter of adiaphora but was endemic of serious doctrinal issues.I couldn't help but parallel Luther's situation with our current situation. Defense of practical matters falls on the shoulders of personal taste, cultural sensibilities, and cause-effect outcomes but many fail to see any doctrinal implications and cry out "Adiaphora!" When a pastor defends his concerns about such practices with the Word of God, he is called a "stick-in-the-mud" or worse-yet a legalist. What burden do we place on our pastors when we reject their Biblical defense? How can we demand they be placed under Christian counseling by their circuit counselor and district president for being the authority which Christ has placed him into? Luther's example is far worse but demonstrates the terrible effects upon Christ's servants when the church opposes the Word. Its no wonder Luther lifted the burden of celibacy from the priests (never mind the theological motive.) At least in the context of his own home, the pastor can fulfill the vocation of pastor to his own family, even when rejected by his flock. At least in this context he can instruct them in the faith and be a servant of the Word. I was encouraged by Luther's family life in the film. I wonder how often these two spheres really should cross paths. Granted we have institutionalized catechism so it is no longer taught in the parsonage. Yet I wonder if this indicates a view of our pastors as occupational rather than vocational. It appears that the criticisms based on the practical concerns are largely informed by business ethics and not a theological ethic. A truly theological ethic of the vocation of pastor (an ethic informed by God's Word) would necessarily recognize the pastor as a flawed, sinful man yet the one placed into the institution of Christ's church. Just as our earthly fathers are flawed yet we owe them due respect, so our spiritual fathers are the same. The criteria for judging one's pastor must not be his friendliness or leadership skills per se but rather his fidelity in the public proclamation of the Word and administration of the Sacraments. Additional criteria should include those from Paul's pastoral epistles. But the main thing is his Word and Sacrament practice. This was Luther's beef with Rome too. They stopped being critical of abuses to Word and Sacrament. They allowed false doctrine to creep in. When someone named Luther came along who was critical of the main thing, they threaten to burn him at the stake. A pastor can rightly only defend himself by the Word of God. All other defenses are flimsy. Listen to Christ's Word spoken by his chosen servant and forgive him his earthly flaws.
