Theological Pet Peeves

Note: I originally wrote this two weeks ago (18 November, to be specific), and just haven't gotten back around to editing and post it between Thanksgiving, illness and travelling.  Finally getting there! -S

A few weeks ago was especially unnerving for me, hitting on many of the "theological pet peeves" I have, so I thought I might put together a brief commentary on each of them.  They're not in any particular order (other than how I thought of them).

1) "Accepting" vs. "Receiving" faith
While I generally understand what Christians mean when they ask, "When did you accept Jesus?", my mind immediately reacts with "SEMI-PELAGIANIST!!!"  I know it may seem like semantics, but in all the research I have been doing of late on Original Sin, I know that no one would ever "choose" faith.  We cannot choose spiritual good.  I've spent years trying to figure out how to explain this in a concise manner, and it finally dawned on me this week.  I've always said that our role in the creation of faith is passive, not active.  But finally, the right word to use instead of accept dawned on me.  It is receive.  We receive faith.  We may reject it (which is what everyone would do, were it not for the working of the Holy Ghost), but our receipt of  faith is entirely passive.  Putting the emphasis on our acceptance (or supposedly active) role in salvation is nothing short of Semi-Pelegianism, even if it isn't meant that way.  We have to be very precise in what we say, not be lazy or sloppy in theology.

2) Saying "just" in prayers
I don't know if there is necessarily anything theologically wrong with this, but I can't stand when people use the world "just" in prayers.  It's a filler, it's annoying and it just makes me want to scream.  Another thing that drives me nuts is when people mutter things under their breath in prayer.  Again, not sure there is really anything wrong with it, but I can't concentrate when I am listening to others when I'm supposed to be praying.  Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard a Lutheran do either of those things.  I wonder why that is?

3) Dual Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology
With all that has gone on in Israel the past weeks, I keep seeing posts on Facebook about how America has to save Israel and (yes, some people have actually said this) how America was created to save Israel, even though Israel wasn't a nation until 150+ years after we were founded as a country.  This comes from a largely Dispensational idea that Israel must be restored before the return of Christ (something I've never found in the Bible).  What the Bible does make clear is the New Covenant, which is not just for Israel but for all in Jesus.  America may have strategic or other reasons to help or "save" Israel, but using Dispensational Theology with no Biblical basis to make political decisions terrifies me.

4) End Times Signs-seekers
Jesus told us that even He does know know when He is to return.  One of the frustrations that also comes from Dispensationalism is that there are those who continue to look for signs, even though we cannot know the hour or day when Jesus is to return.  From solar flares to the UN (which is, by the by, a misunderstanding of the Antichrist, who is a religious, NOT political, figure) to waiting for an invented Rapture, I seem to see something new at least weekly.  There are even those who claim that 21 December 2012, the day the Mayan Calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world, is also the day the Rapture will happen.  These attempts to read signs that aren't there just makes the rest of us Christians look silly and loony.  It's hard for anyone to take Christianity seriously when what is known about it is just plain goofy, and not actual Christian, Biblical doctrine.

5) "Baptism is just a symbol, but you must be fully immersed and not an infant for it to be valid."

If something is only "symbolic", why do you care how it is done?  What does it matter?  Sigh.

6) "You cross yourself?  Oh, you must be a Catholic."
Um... no.  I know many non-Catholics who cross themselves: Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc.  I wish this was something more Christians did, but no, that doesn't make me Catholic.

7) "Lutherans are intellectual Christians."
For some reason, people seem to think this is an insult.  It isn't.  What's sad is that more Christians aren't "intellectual".  What I mean by that is that they know and understand the Bible, Theology, church history, other Denominations, early Church Fathers, etc.  So few seem to dig into the meat of Christianity, and it is sad.  Our faith is not just one of belief, but also of reason.  It is very logical, but you have to understand and study. That is the greatest disservice done by American Churches today--they seem to be nothing more than fluff and entertainment, and seriously lack substance.  Yes, that is a generalization.  But I hear so often we should ignore our differences for unity.  No.  We cannot have unity without understanding our differences, and why those differences exist.  Then we can have discussions about differences and perhaps come to a place of unity.  Ignoring them only makes the divisions worse.

8) Not capitalizing appropriate references to God
I've been typing up charts from a book written by a protestant theological professor which are largely helpful, but he seems incapable of capitalizing "He" in reference to God, or "The Word" in reference to the Bible, or many other similar examples.  It has reminded me how much that drives me nuts.  You don't have to capitalize everything, but when you're specifically referring to God or His Word, it is the right thing to do.

9) "Why do you have to be so arrogant?"
I get that a lot, and it is a fair criticism to some extent.  I tend to be a very snarky person by nature.  I'm very good at speaking the truth, I'm not so good at always doing it in love.  Rather than arrogance (which I can understand how it looks that way), though, I would submit it is confidence--confidence in my faith to the point that I would die for it.  I made that vow in my confirmation, and I take it very seriously.  I have a hard time even wanting to evangelize, because I see a broken church--and why on earth would I want to bring more people into something broken?  So I spend more (most) of my time attempting to correct the serious errors I see in Christendom today.  One thing I desperately miss about the early church is the condemnation of heresy.  The Roman Catholic Church still does this to some degree, but we need more of it.  There is so much heresy in the church today, and few seem to even realize it.  And so in my frustration and sadness over this, I tend to resort to snark.  For that I apologize.  I hope you will all understand it comes from a place of confidence in my faith and wanting to not see heresy in the church.

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." -- Martin Luther

Heresies of the Week: Joachimism and Dulcinianism

Due to illness and travelling last week, I missed my 'heresy of the week' post--my apologies. As penance, today I give you two that are somewhat related to each other: Joachimism and Dulcinianism. 

 On Thursday, 6 December, there will be another post on a 'major' heresy in honor of my favorite heretic slapper, St. Nicholas.


Joachimism is a Millenarianism eschatological heresy from the 13th century that was condemned in 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran. Many believed that the writings of Joachim were the Eternal Gospel, or at least the road to it. He attempted to predict the end of the world and the rise of the Anti-Christ through looking at historical events and preached that a utopia was coming. His followers believed this new utopian age (also sometimes called the New Age of the Holy Spirit) would be egalitarian and monastic. Like Dulcinianism (which many considered to be inspired by Joachimism), in order for the new age to come, the Catholic Church must be abolished and that perfection was in a communal (almost Marxist) state.

Dulcinianism is a Millenarianism sect of the late middle ages (13th and 14th centuries). The main concepts of this heresy were the fall of all ecclesiastical hierarchy and the return of the church to its “original ideals” of humility and poverty; the fall of the feudal system and the liberation from any human restraint and entrenched power; and the creation of a new egalitarian society based on mutual aid and respect, with property being held in common and an emphasis on gender equality. This heresy was considered to be inspired by Joachimism.

Heresy of the Week: Swedenborgianism

This week's heresy is a new one to my list.  I discovered it listening to Table Talk Radio (I can't remember which episode, if I can find it, I'll link it).  It's a newer heresy.  It seems a very weird blend of Gnosticism, Pelagianism and Eastern Mysticism to me.  And yes, even Lutherans can go bad (see my previous post for comments on Pietism).  As much as I needle other denominations, I think it's both important and only fair that I air our faults as well.

Swedenborgianism, also known as the Church of the New Jerusalem, is an 18th century heresy founded by Emanuel Swedenborg. Formerly a Lutheran and a scientist, Swedenborg (like Joseph Smith) claimed a revelation from God that revealed secret knowledge to him (Gnosticism). Like Sabellianism, Swedenborg taught that God only existed in one ‘mode’ or form now: Jesus. Swedenborg’s soteriology said that believer’s had full cooperation in their salvation process (Pelagianism), and that strict obedience to commands (Legalism) is necessary for salvation. It was taught that Swedenborg was witness to the Last Judgment, and that the New Church of the Jerusalem was the result of the Last Judgment already being complete. Followers believe that all who do good, even non-believers, will be acceptable to God and taken to Heaven (God is goodness, therefore those who do good join themselves to God). Swedenborg taught that the church should be based on charity and love, not belief and doctrine.

Heresy of the Week: Circumcellionism

I was planning on doing another heresy this week, but the research is taking too long, so hopefully I'll have that one ready for next week.  In the meanwhile, I present Circumcellionism, a rather odd sub-Donatism heresy.  

Briefly, Donatism (which I shall further explain at a later time) was a sect of North African heretics in the 4th and 5th centuries who focused on asceticism, martyrdom, and "purity" in the church (that the church must be one of saints, not sinners).

Circumcellionism (also known as Agnosticisism) was a band of heretical Christian extremists in North Africa in the 4th and 5th centuries. While initially concerned with remedying social grievances (such as condemning property ownership and slavery, and advocating the cancelling of all debts), they became obsessed with the “true Christian virtue” of martyrdom. Because of Jesus’ warning to Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane to put down his sword, they never used bladed weapons, often opting for blunt clubs. They would randomly attack passersby in an attempt to provoke the victim to retaliate and kill them. Sometimes they would interrupt courts of law and provoke the judge to order an immediate execution (the usual punishment for contempt of court at the time). Circumcellionism was connected with the Donatism heresy.

"Sharing" Jesus and Our Faith (or... Flabby Theological Language)

After seeing an excellent quote from Pr. Donavon Reily on Facebook (like I see at least a few times a week), I share it.  And such a fascinating discussion ensued, I thought it would be worth documenting here as well.  I offer it to you without my commentary, but would be interested in your thoughts or comments on "sharing" vs. "fellowship" or "communion".

The initial quote (from Pr. Reily) says:

‎"Christians are not called and sent to share Jesus or worse, share their faith... We are to preach Christ, and Him crucified, for the forgiveness of sins. The world doesn't need us to share Jesus with them, they need to hear of God's free choosing of them through Jesus' dying and rising "for you." They don't need a toe, or a spleen, or a wisp of hair. They need Jesus: all of Him, or nothing at all."

To which he added:

"As a brother-pastor noted, because we have transliterated the word "koinonia" into "share," we now have "sharing" instead of "fellowship," or, "communion." In other words, we've allowing flabby language into our high-speed, highly-tuned theology."

And, of course, that is from where I got the title for this post. Then a friend of Pr. Reily, Larry Griffin, added:

"English Standard Version (©2001) 'and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.'"

Here is where it gets fun. from Pr. Riley:

"Larry Griffin, you can cite a poor (Reformed) translation, but that doesn't resolve the matter. It's properly translated as ‘close association, fellowship.’ That is, for example, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν ‘in order that you may have fellowship with us’ 1 Jn 1:3; δἰ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘through whom you were called to have fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ’ 1 Cor 1:9."

Pr. David Juhl:

"The so-called "Koinonia Project" is not about "sharing" each other's faith. It is about restoring communion with one another. The German word is "Gemeinschaft", often translated "fellowship", but that doesn't catch what the Greek is saying. κοινωνία is oneness in the faith, a oneness that is not shared but believed. Therefore, we work together toward κοινωνία, oneness, intimacy of doctrine, not sharing."

Larry Griffin:

"I'm just not ready to say that the word "share" can never be used in a proper way. I am not a big fan of the word, but I have used it as an opposite of "keeping to myself" the truths that set us free."

Pr. Reily:

"You can use "share" as you so choose, but the Greek and the German don't support you. You're adding your own spin to the word. And that's what I (we) are getting at. It's not about what you want it to mean, but what the sources define it as ... as my brother also notes, "The word for "to share" as in to give another a portion of something is συγκοινωνέω." "

Pr. Juhl:

"Back to German for a bit. κοινωνία is not tranlated "Anteil". Anteil is "share" or "portion". The German word is "Gemeinschaft". Gemeinschaft is "community" or better "communion". Anteil denotes a part of something. Gemeinschaft is the fullness of something. Frankly, Brother Griffin, I would rather have the fullness, the Gemeinschaft, rather than the Anteil, the portion. I will grant you that "share" is a good word than can be used in a good way. I submit that "share" is not the best word to be used for κοινωνία. Let us not Anteil the κοινωνία, but Gemeinschaft!"

Pr. Brandt Hoffman:

"κοινωνία isn't some silly "mission project" or some popular buzz word. It is an actual reflection of the faith God has given us in His Word and Sacraments. There is a unity which is created by God's Holy Spirit. Consider Acts 4:32 and the use of koivwvia...
Τοῦ δὲ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων ἦν καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ μία, καὶ οὐδὲ εἷς τι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν ἴδιον εἶναι ἀλλʼ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντα κοινά. 

That isn't a mission project, or some sort of bogus "sharing" language. That is the full and complete giving of EVERYTHING of Christ Himself. His very proclamation IS "fellowship" / "Life Together". The life we have together IS CHRIST."

Pr. Reily

"Jacob Ehrhard writes: Koinonia is a noun, "a share of" something common.

If you run the verb form koinoneo, you get these uses in the NT (the thing which is shared is in parentheses):
Gal 6:6 (all good things, money, offerings)
Rom 12:13 (the needs of the saints)
Rom 15:27 (to have a share in the spirit with the Gentiles who have come to faith)
1 Tim 5:22 (sin)
2 John 11 (wicked works)
Heb 2:14 (flesh and blood of Jesus!)
1 Pet 4:13 (Christ's sufferings!)
And the best is Phil 4:15 (to have a share in the giving and receiving of St. Paul).

In most of these cases, the respective form of koinoneo has the understanding of "to have a share in" in a passive sense, rather than an active sharing of something that you have.

Also, in nearly every case, the sharing takes place with those who are already believers, that is, the "koino" stuff takes place between Christians and not from believers to unbelievers. In the cases where something is shared with an unbeliever, it's sin and wickedness."

Pr. Hoffman:

"Bringing down the requirements for Olympics runners so that guys like me can run in the Olympics only ruins the Olympics. The same is true for allowing flabby language into our high-speed, highly-tuned theology."

Heresy of the Week: Cerinthianism

This week's heresy is one of the many branches of Gnosticism.  It is of particular interest, because of it's connection to Premillennialism.

Cerinthianism is a Gnosticism-branch heresy of the mid-2nd century. Unlike Marcionism, which was hostile to any Jewish remnant in Christianity, Cerinthus (for whom this heresy is named) revered Jewish Scripture and often only preached from the Gospel of Matthew, which he considered to be the most Jewish of the canonical Gospels. Cerinthians believed that God did not create the world, but creator-angels who were ignorant of the existence of the Supreme God created earth and gave humans laws to follow. Cerinthus taught a Donatism-like view of Jesus vs. Christ, in that Jesus was the man (also an Ebionitism heresy) and Christ the spiritual entity bestowed upon the man at His baptism (similar to Adoptionism, also a Gnosticism-style heresy that wouldn’t come to fruition until decades later after Cerinthus). He taught that Jesus’ body will be raised on the last day with all men. Cerinthus also taught that strict adherence to Mosaic Law (Legalism and Pelagianism) was a requirement for salvation (including circumcision), something rejected by the Council of Jerusalem. He was the first known teacher of Premillennialism, an end-times heresy that asserts Christ will establish a 1,000 year earthly kingdom prior to the physical resurrection and the New Heaven.

A brief note on hermeneutics

In listening to Issues, Etc. 24, Pr. Jonathan Fisk had great comments on hermeneutics before getting onto his given topic of the Lord's Supper--if you want to hear for yourself, they podcast all their broadcasts, and it would be well worth the listen once that podcast is available (probably later today or tomorrow).

What is hermeneutics?  Simply, it is the study of interpreting text, or in specific for our purposes, the study of interpreting the text of the Bible.

The greatest point that I heard was that we often bring the Devil's first question, "Did God really say that?" into our reading of the Bible.  Or, perhaps more specifically, when we come to a passage that we don't like or can't understand, we often seek other Scripture not to allow Scripture to interpret itselves, but to allow Scripture from somewhere else to trump that passage and explain it away.

As a child has faith their parents will protect them or feed them or love them, etc. without needing to understand "how" (they might ask, but generally they ultimately accept it without truly comprehending the entirety of "how"), there is no where in Scripture, other writings (Christian and secular) or anywhere else that says we, as humans, are to understand everything and know the "how" and "why" of absolutely everything.  Sometimes we simply need a child-like faith that understands stated truths without needing to realize everything behind it.

A specific example, and one I'm very familiar with, was that Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) in most of his books and speaking engagements wonders why Christians cannot understand the plain language of a day meaning a day, and yet he does not hold the Bible to be clear and plain when Jesus gives us the Words of Institution.

Even other Christians who claim to hold a "literal" interpretation of Scripture often deny the Words of Institution and other clear, plain language in the Bible, while holding to figurative or non-literal passages as truth (i.e. Revelations).

After listening to a previous Issues, Etc. podcast on Dispensational Premillennialism, I made this comment on Facebook: "Great point re: Dispensational Premillennialism. Everyone I know who subscribes to that belief claims to be a "literalist" when it comes to Biblical exegesis and interpretation, and yet I don't know any Dispensational Premillennialist who also subscribes to a literal interpretation of the Words of Institution ("this IS My Body", "this IS My Blood of the NEW covenant"). So... are they only literalists when it comes to eschatology? If that is so, what other parts of the Bible don't they take literally, or is that only regarding the Eucharist? And how can they claim to be literalists if they don't believe in a literal interpretation of EVERYTHING the Bible says?"

Ultimately, proper hermeneutics means knowing what is being said (a study of the original languages is extremely helpful to this end), understanding the context (what do the verses around it say?  to whom was this written?  why was it written?  who wrote it?  when was it written? etc.), realizing that many translations are inaccurate to the context (surprisingly, humans tend to bring their bias into translation efforts--who would have thought that?), always allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture (even passages we don't like or make us uncomfortable), and most importantly, not allowing the Devil to creep in and cause us to ask, "Did God really say?".  Scripture never contradicts itself if you understand context, which is absolutely key in hermeneutics.  We don't need to know everything, we don't need to understand everything, we just need faith.