Volume 63: 4 October 1999 Table of Contents The Theological Symposia of Concordia Theological Seminary ............... 243 Demagoguery or Democracy? The Saxon Emigration and American Culture Lawrence R. Rast Jr. ..................... 247 A Critique of the Fourfold Pattern David P. Scaer .......................... 269 Theology and the Great Tradition of English Bibles Cameron A. MacKenzie .................. 281 Theological Observer ......................... 301 L'ossmatore Romana Regensburg Redivivus? On Being "Catholic" - Nothing New Book Reviews ................................ , 113 Jesus and the Angrls: Angr.iologv and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. By Peter Carrel1 ..................... Charles A. Gieschen Martin Luther: Exploring His Lijfe and Times, 1433-1546. By Helrnar Junghans .... Lawrence R. Rast Jr. Where in the World is God?. By Harold L. Senkbeil ......................... James G. Bushur Indices for Volume 63 ......................... 3 1 8 Theological Observer L'ossematore Romano ,4 complimentary copy of the weekly edition oi the Vatican newspaper arrived on September 27, the day before the Public Broadcasting System offered a documentary on Pope John Paul 11. Public television may be free, but the asking price for L'ossmatore Romano is $109 a year. This comes to slightly more than $2.00 a copy, a price that may have forever prevented this newspaper from finding its way into the seminary library. With the Lutheran World Federation, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), making an accommodation with Rome on the doctrine of justification, curiosity about any real changes in the theology of either signatory to the Joinf Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is piqued. The word on the street is that Rome took the Declaratiorz a Iittle less seriously than their newly adopted Lutheran half-brothers have. In the thoroughly Roman Catholic countries llke Italy, Spain and Ireland, the odds are that the resident population have IittIe idea who Lutherans are and have not added the word "justification" either by works or faith to their vocabularies. Many Christians, regardless of their denominational or confessional allegiance, would be hard pressed on their own to articulate a coherent doctrine of justification. Proof of this are the surveys sponsored by the fraternal insurance companies. Somehow a large number of Lutherans answer that they will be saved by leading good lives, which, considering the moral morass of the world at the turn of the millennium, is not without merit. Add to the mix the second last line of the Athanasian Creed, "And they that have done good shall go to life everlasting," and you have the recipe for confusion. Luther ejected James from the canon before he had time to consider that James, like the Athanasian Creed, was speaking in terms of the final judgment (one may compare Matthew 25) and not how we know ourseIves now to be accepted by Christ, which can only be by faith. Anyone who trusts in Christ alone is justified, even if he does not use the word "justification" or misspeaks in defining it. Surveys on whether Lutherans redy understand justification have value because they can evoke righteous indignation over these predictably wrong answers. These wrong answers sometimes find their way into sermons to show why Lutherans are not reaUy Lutherans any more. But they prove little more than showing some of us are simply not at home with theological terminology. The fraternal insurance companies can release their polIsters with thanks. Those Lutherans who reached an accord with Rome on justification need not be concerned with definitions, since they have already given their imp~matur to Rome's position, regardless of its current articulation. Some ELCA theologians objected to the Joint Declaration on the Docln'ne of Justificatio~l because, apart from the inadequacy of its wording, Rome did not come clean on the role the saints, and especially Mary, play in salvation. This was hardly nitpicking, since a year or two ago the pope backed away from conferring on her the honorific title of co-redemptrix, which wouId have brought disaster to Rome's ecumenical plans. But it was on his mind. Rome has not hesitated to assign Mary redemptive-like acts that the New Testament assigns to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. She serves as CO-redemptrix de facto in every way except name. Official Rome cannot be held responsible for each act of that common Marian devotion which seems structured on native goddess worship of primitive cultures, but the problem is also current in modern countries. Upon retuning from a sabbatical leave in Spain, the late Professor Otto Stahlke reported that an invocation was pronounced for a televised Mass "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Vir,$n Mary." More recently it came to Iight at a testive reception foIIowing a consecration for a Nebraskan that he received an emergency baptism in the name of "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph." Rome is not alone in misuse of the baptismal formula. Forurn Letter reports that in the ELCA, occasional baptisms are administered "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit- the Mother of us all." Choose your poison. Stressful situations may create forgivable aberrations, but the newly consecrated bishop was found not to be consecrated at all and had to receive all the appropriate sacraments again, beginning with a properly worded baptism. Anecdotal evidence can hardly be used to evaluate another church. We all live in glass houses. WhiIe Marian pollution of the trinitarian name may pop up here and there, we can be absolutely certain that such substitution formulas are never used in any of the baptistries within the walls of the Vatican. No aberrant formulae would ever find its way on to pages of official Vatican missals and printed liturgies. Would that the matter were closed, but it is not. A letter from John Paul I1 printed in the September 1,1999 edition of L'ossematore Rmnmo attributes to the Virgin Mary qualities reserved in the Bible for the Holy Spirit. Under the title "Mary is Mother to all, Mother forever," the Roman Pontiff's open letter to the bishop of Sussa (Italy), says that "the goal of [Mary's] mission is to produce in believers the features of her first-born Son, . . . bringing them at the Theological Observer 303 same time to recover ever more clearly that image and likeness of God in whidl thev were created (cf. Genesis 1:26)." We further learn that faithhl know they can count on the heavenly Mother's concern: ~a~y rvlu never abandon them." Just how are we to react? While her concern is appreciated. it would be better to hold with the New ,Testament that the Holy Spirit is God's renewing agent and power to renew God's image in us by bringing it in conformity with Christ. Christ promises that He, with the Father and the Holy Spirit dwells in believers and they will never desert us. We believe that we are surrounded by saints who experienced the same trids we do and they pray to God for us, but what counts are merits of Christ, who, with the Holy Spirit, is living in us. The same issue of the Vatican newspaper contains prayers to the Virgin Mary. asking her help in facing life's tribulations. She also is held responsible for the success of the evangelism mission in Sussa, Italy. Interested parties can locate the English edition of L'osservatore Ronlmzo in the library of the local Roman parish or diocesan office for additional references to Mary's other accomplishments. Disturbing is that this Marian devotion is not simply of an ill-formed species of common piety, but comes from the pope's pen. Lutheran signatories to the Joint DecIarutio~z must come to terms with the reaIity that Rome has not in any sense accommodated herself to Lutheran teaching on justification. Life goes on in Rome as if the Joinf Declaration on the Doctrine of lustiflcation had never been signed. It can be assumed that Rome signed simply to avoid tarnishing her ecumenical image in her attempt to bring Christian churches together. Vatican 11 was ecumenically sanative by providing biblical arguments (whether we agree with them is another matter) and subordinating her role to that of her Son. Statues of her in newly constructed churches occupied a less prominent place. Enter John Paul 11. Emblazoned on the Papal coat of arms in the lower right quadrant of the cross is a prominent "M," symbolizing the theme of his papacy "ad lesurn per Marirm," to Jesus through Mary. Granted. that God did come to the world through Mary, incamatus de spirit0 sancto ex Maria virgine, but the pope has conversion and regeneration and not incarnation in mind. The role assigned by the New Testament to the Spirit is given to Mary. It hardly squares with "the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel . . . and keeps all Christians in the one true faith." Now comes the PBS documentary on John Paul 11, which is appropriately complimentary, as well it should be, and critical in an analytical Smse- We hope that we do no less and recognize him as an ally in insisting on an all male clergy and admire his courage in going to his native Soviet-dominated Poland. This led to the demise of its Communist regime and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its hegemony over eastern Europe. We owe him something. Of concern is his devotion to Mary, especially when it appeared that Catholicism, especially in its American form, was backing away from it. Psychological studies, especially the Freudian types, including what Erik Erikson did to Luther, are suspect and now outmoded. The whole matter, however, was opened up again by the PBS documentary on the present pontiff who is Polish, a country of profound devotion to Mary. Here was a link between the pope's devotion to his mother, who died when he was four months, and the woman he would later call "the mother of us all." Though he did not know his mother in any real sense, he kept a photograph of her holding him and and one of him reading his poems at her grave when he was a teenager. Mary may have become the heavenly surrogate for the earthly mother he never knew. Psychological conclusions may never be completely convincing, but this one explains why the leader of an increasingly ecumenically sensitive church is willing to sacrifice that image for his devotion to Mary. Similarities between revering Mary as mother" and the "Mother" goddess imagery of the feminist movement are obvious even to some Roman Catholic scholars, who are willing to take advantage of a shared terminology. Traditional trinitarian worship of the Father and the Son may make any real accommodation impossible for Rome; however, the verbal equipment is in place. Confessional Lutherans with a deep sense of incarnation have revived honoring Mary, at least through the three days set aside for this purpose in the church calendar. They see the real danger in church worship life not in an excessive awareness of the presence of the saints, including Mary, but in the transcendence of Reformed theology (finiturn non capax infiniti). Still, the pope's devotion to Mary is minimally an embarrassment to us, not unlike Luther's own dilemma. His earlv devotion to her was tempered by her being revered as if she were a goddess, but what he experienced must have been mild in comparison to the excesses which the current pontiff has allowed for himself and encouraged among his flock. When he was wounded in Saint Peter's Square, he cried out "Totus Maria ego sum" - "Mary, I am all yours." As a mode1 of faith who committed herself fully to God in becoming the mother of His Son, she occupies the place of honor among the saints. We Lutherans have no other choice but to join her in singing the Magn@t in making her faith our Theological Observer 305 own. To say anything less than she is I'i.,eotc,kos md M:ltcr D?: is to tall into the error of ancient Nestorianism and its modern form in Reformed theology. lo give her such deserved honor is even more necessary 'in the face of that destructive bibiicd criticism that challenges any idea that Jesus thought of Himself as anvthing special. including the Son of God. .-\scribing her a role in our justltication is an entirely different matter and something which the Lutheran signatories to theJoint Deciaratioli on the Dochine ~f]zi.rt$cdriol should have thought about before they put their John Hancock to the paper. Perhaps the next occupant in Peter's chair ma?; be more circumspect in Marian language and devotion. David P. kaer Regensburg Redivivus? TheJoiirt Dizclaratio~~ 011 thc Doctrine ofJustificaiio~i has been hailed by prominent Lutheran leaders as a "theol&ical breakthrough." The maker of this statement goes on to claim that the foint Declnration has "bridged a theological divide that has separated us for nearly 500 years."' A press release from the Lutheran World Federation asserts that the "document ends [the] 400-vear dispute on doctrine of justification."' Other Lutherans have described the ]oi~rt Deciuratlon as a "betrayal of the Gospel" and have said that it "reyresel~ts a clear, stunning departure from the Reformation and thus is contrary to what it means to be a Lutheran ~hristian."~ he Rornan Catholic Church has been able to add another feather in its ecurnenicd cap without backing away one inch from the Canons of the Council ot Trent, bvhich are as normative as ever for the Roman CathoIic Church. It serves the purpose of those who are advocates of this document to neglect history in their effort to "interpret" this event to their church. But history, as usual, cuts through the "spill" used by various church press agencies. It reveds the truth of what the joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is. The Ioint Declaratiorr is redly not as I Bishop H. George Anderson as quoted in "Lutherans, Roman Catholics Prepare to Sign Historic Agreement," ELCA News Service Press Release, October 6,1999. '"LWF Council Unanimously Approves Joint Declaration with Roman CathoIics: Document Ends 400-Year Dispute on Doctrine of Justification," Lutheran World Federation Press Release, June 16,1998. 'President A. L. Barry as quoted in "A Betrayal of the GospeI." LC-blS News Service Press Release, October 18,1999. new as some would claim. Long ago, certain Lutherans and Roman Catholics came together to work out their differences. They produced and discussed a document. But at this time Lutherans were not quite so eager to settle for the ambiguity and sophistry that one finds in the Joint Declaration. This is a brief summary of the story of the Regensburg Colloquy. In the late 1530s, at the height of the Reformation, Emperor Charles V attempted to bring the feuding religious parties together. From January 14-18,1541, PhiIip Melanchthon met with Luther's old nemesis, Johann Eck, and discussed the Augsburg Confession. Following this meeting unknown to the Lutherans, an agreement was developed at secret meetings held in the city of Worms. A draft of the agreement was drawn up and became known as the Regensburg Book. Martin Eucer sent the draft to Elector joachim I1 and asked that he share it with Martin Luther, soliciting his opinior,. Luther did not approve. Even Melanchthon referred to it as: "A Platonic republic."4 At the beginning of April, 1541, Luther heard the rumor that he supported the Regensburg Book. He responded with an angry denial, insisting that the Smalcald Articles must be the basis for any theological agreement. He asserted that unity in justification must precede any discussion of other issues. Luther said that if this was not how agreement was achieved, anything else would be patchwork. He further observed that there was really no large dispute anyway over matters of adiaphora, such as worship, since "a visitor from the Romance lands did not even notice that he was not in a Catholic church" when visiting the congregation in wittenberg.' It was therefore not of concern that such matters be discussed. What really mattered was the doctrine of justification. The Diet of Regensburg began on April 27,1541 and was based on the Regensburg Book. Melanchthon attended. Luther did not, for he had not been invited to participate. After much discussion, a provisional agreement was reached on May 2. The agreement stated that faith depends entireIy on the imputed righteousness of Christ. The agreement went on to state that faith was active in love. The compromise put imputed righteousness first, but it did not cIarify the reIationship between faith and works in the process of justification. It used the essential Reformation phrase "through faith alone" only with 4Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532-1546, translated bv James Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 219. '~recht, Luther, 223. Theological Observer 307 careful qualification by the Roman side. Contarini sent the compromise document to Rome, where it was rejected. Elector John Frederick immediateIy forwarded the formula of colllpromise to Luther and Bugenhagen for their opinions. He his concerns that the compromise seemed to admit of error bv the Evangelicals. The elector wisely noted that the qualification of the phrase "justification through faith done" was a negative development. Luther's response to the Regensburg compromise formula was not surprising. He viewed it as a collection of different points of view. He also observed that with the compromise both sides could claim that their concerns had been met. He asserted that the agreement wouId come apart over the doctrine of justification. For Luther the best way to express the doctrine of justification was by using Romans 3:24, 26: "They are justified by his grace as a gift. . . . For we hoId that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. . . . Let the devil, Eck, Mainz, Heinz, and anyone else rage against this. Mre shall see what they win." Luther maintained that clear distinctions had to be made "between the cause of justification and its evidence in life, that is, good works. Before God only Christ's righteousness was valid, not the righteousness within a person. God regards works as hoIp only for Christ's sake."6 The discussio~~s continued. Melanchthon refused to compromise. On May 22, the discussions fell apart. The news of the collapse greatly relieved Luther, as did the good news that armed force was not going to be used against the Evangelicals. In a final effort to achieve agreement, the emperor ordered a deIegation to go to visit Luther in Wittenberg to seek his support for the four articles on original sin, justification, free will, and faith and good works that had been discussed at Regensburg. They were told to obtain assurance from Luther that he would tolerate the Roman position in regard to the other articles not yet discussed. It is clear that the emperor and others had a mistaken opinion about Luther's willingness to compromise. When Luther learned of the delegation that had been appointed to visit him, he said that it reminded him of his experience at the Diet of Worms in 1521 where he had been commanded to recant his position on the gospel. The discussions between Luther and the Imperial delegation took place on June 10, 1541 in Wittenberg. Luther prepared a written response. Though he was highly skeptical, he was not opposed to "recht, Luther, 225. trying to work toward an agreement. He insisted, ho~vever, that the article of justification demanded careful scrutiny and genuine agreement prior to any other discussions. Finally, at the end of rune, 1541, Elector John Frederick of Saxony asked both Luther and Bugenhagen for a specific statement on the Regensburg Book. Their response left no doubt in anyone's mind where they stood. Luther insisted that before there could be agreement with Rome, the pope would have to admit that he had deceived many and led them astrav. He said that the elector had to insist on the Augsburg Confession and the Apology. Luther said that making clear and careful distinctions is part of confessing the truth. He went on to assert that a true agreement between the two parties wouId require the Roman Catholics to "retract, condemn, and curse all their theology, their sentences, decretals, all the summists, buIls, letters, all foundations' and monasteries' doctrine and life, alI popes', cardinals', and bishops' offices and character, along with everything that they have gained with this error, idolatry, blasphemy, and lies." Without this, said Luther, the agreement would only be a deception7 Luther said that condemning the devil went along with faith and confessing one's sins. On July 12, the Lutheran representatives at the Diet of Regensburg submitted their formal response to the Regensburg Book. It was written by MeIanchthon (and was more miId than what Luther had written in his response). The Lutherans indicated that clanfications were still needed. They held to their position and did not yield, and forced the Roman representatives to speak with absolute clarity in regard to the issue of the relationship of faith and good works in the doctrine of justification. What we have with the Joint Declaration mz tlze Doctrine of Justiflation is a revival of the proposed compromise of Regensburg. The Joint Declaration is not an agreement, but a carefully worded document that permits both sides to maintain their respective positions. The key issue remaim: is salvation by grace done, through faith alone, totaUy on account of Christ alone, or is it a combination of faith and works. Rome has not changed. It insists that "eternal life is at the same time both a gdt and a reward for merit and works."8 The difference -- -- 7Brecht, Luther, 227. B Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification, http:// www.vatican.va/romancan&a/pontifical_coun&/chrstuni/doc~- ments. Theological Observer 309 between Regensburg and the ]oiilr Di~!o~gti~?: 01; rj1~3 Doct,r~r~~ oj jld,itifi~at!~li is that then the Lutherans rejected Roman error and amb~guity. This time they have per~n~tted, ivelcorned, encouraged, and now have celebrated and hailed it as a breakthrough iVriting to the Elector John Frederick, Luther noted how serious a matter the proposed compromise agreement was ~vith Rome and n~hy it was such an evil. "\.k7hether those who issued it meant tvell in their conceited ignorance in doing so or nclt . . . nothing more injurious has been undertaken against us since our gospel began to sFread."' Luther is stiII right. Paul McCain Saint Louis, Missouri On Being "Catholic" -Nothing New Recent seminary graduates will often put into practice in their first congregations the things they learned at the seminary. .At Ieast we hope so. When these things have to do ~vith liturgics, the all to^ frequent response is that these adjustrnenis are "too Catholic." Standard sellxinary chapel services - what flecv in Fort LVayne-won't play in Peoria, so it is said. For the record, seminary instructors often and severely admurGsh the students to respect the liturgical practices and standard operating procedures of the congregations that they are called to serve. These congregatio~~s will long outlast their pastors. Patience is perhaps the most diificul t virtue for new pas tors to learn. Avoiding confrontation will make it easier for the shepherd to care for his sheep. Problei~s will inevitably arise, however, if the sheep think that they are the shepherd in the form of a board or a committee, but that's another issue. It is the charge that this or that pastor is "too Catholic" that needs to be investigated, even though the absence of hard statistics suggests that these kinds of cases are isolated. We have never heard of a congregation raising a compIaint because their pastor is "too Baptist" or "too Methodist." Generally .American Protestants, including Lutherans, prefer that their pastors err on the anh-Catholic side of things. All this is a matter for another day. Much of what is dismissed today as "too Catholic" is, in fac t, good, historic Missouri practice. For example in the mid-1860s being wartin Luther, "Letter to the Elector John Frederick, August 4,1541," TF,e Letters of Martin Luther, selected and translated hy hlargaret 4. Currle (London: Macmillan, 1908), 403. "somewhat allied to popery" was a burning issue in American Lutheranism. The General Synod, founded in 1820 and generally given over to a lax form of Lutheranism in doctrine and practice, accused the "Old Lutherans," namely, the Missouri Synod, of being "too Catholic." The June 8,1866 edition of the L-utheru~i Obst.?ver took note of the activities of the Rev. Dr. Wilhelm Sihler, a former president of the Fort Wayne Seminary (previous to its removal to Saint L~ui.5 in 1861) and still at that time pastor of Saint Paul Lutheran Church in Fort Wayne. He was described as "one of the most bigoted and exclusive of the 'Alte Lutheraner' Missouri Synod faction. He carries his narrow-minded, extreme symbolism to the farthest point." Pastor Sihler was found guilty of two sins. First, he had bound himself unconditionally to the Book of Concord (1580j in its entirety becuuse it is a faithful exposition of God's word. (Horrors!j Secondlv, he had placed a crucifix and statues of the evangelists in Saint Paul's sanctuary and used candles during the services. (More horrors!) The Obsemer took note of these tendencies and proudly proclaimed that "the churches of the General Synad do not burn wax canciles, and erect crucifixes in their altars, and introduce other cereimonies somewhat allied to popery." Sihler was not the only Missouri pastor "somewhat allied to popery," because candles, crucifixes, and statuary were commonly found in the Synod's churches at that time. The empty cross syndrome that was said to sigrufy the resurrection had not caught on in the mid- 1800s. Perhaps in one sense such items as crucifixes and statues are adiaphora where there are neither the artists nor the funds to produce them. But in the face of the Protestantism that had infected the American home-grown type of Lutheranism of the General Synod, they had become matters of confession. Silher, Saint Paul congregation, and the other pastors and congregations of the Missouri Synod did not take the ax to what the Obserucr fondly called "popery" - they steadfastly retained such items and practices. The Synod's first constitution spoke at some length on the issue of worship practice, seeing it as a significant element in the church's life together. In order to quallfy for membership in the Synod, a congregation had to affirm "The exclusive use of doctrinally pure church books and schooIbooks (Agenda, hymnals, readers, etc.)."' Thus, the business of Synod was, in part, "to strive after the greatest In Our First Synodical Constitution," Concordia Histmica! Institute Quarterly 16 (April 1943): 3. References in the text in parentheses are to this articIe. Theological Observer 31 1 possible uniformit): in ceremonies" (5). Noting, however, that differing practices did exist, the constitution went on to state: "If it is impossible in some congregations to replace immediateIy the unortl~odox hymnals and the Irke with orthodox ones, then the pastor of such a congregation can become a member of Synod onIy if he promises to use the unorthodox hymnal only under open protest and to strive in all seriousness for the introduction of an orthodox hymnal" (3). The Synod literally required its pastors formally and openly to protest the erroneous practices of their congregations as a condition of membership! Adiaphora was not a good enough reason for not conforming. Today the likes of Fonclard! and Jeszts First Leudoship (www.jesusfirst.net) frequentIy cite the Synod's affirmation that lihrgical practice does not have to be uniform across the Synod. "Synod holds in accordance with the 7'" article of the Augsburg ,r Confession that uniformitv in ceremonies is not essential; . . . Selective quoting, however, misses the Synod's ultimate point; the constitution goes on to detail the nature and usefulness of uniformity in practice. "Yet on the other hand Svnod deems such a uniformity wholesome and useful for the following reasons: because a total difference in outward ceremonies would cause those who are weak in the unity of doctrine to stumble; because in dropping heretofore preserved usages the Church is to avoid the appearance of and desire for innovations" (11-12). We should recall the context of Lutheranism at the time of Missouri's founding. Much of American Lutheranism's practice mirrored that of Methodism, rather than historic Lutheranism. Thus, the constitution noted that Synod deems it necessary for the purification of the Lutheran Church in America, that the emptiness and the poverty in the externals of the service be opposed, which, having been introduced here by the false spirit of the Reformed, is now rampant. All pastors and congregations that wish to be recognized as orthodox by the Synod are prohibited from adopting or retaining any ceremony which might weaken the confession of the truth or condone or strengthen a heresy, especially if heretics insist upon the continuation or the aboIishment of such ceremonies. Further, it takes up what was seen by many Americans as the symboI of popery, private confession and absolution. Its conclusions might surprise some today: "Where private confession is in use, it is to be kept according to Article 11 of the Au&sburg Cunf~ssion Where it is not in use, the pastor is to strive through teaching and instruction to introduce it" (12). That Synod's congregations should be unified in their form of worship is assumed in the first constitution. Lutheran practice,. historic and distinctive, is to characterize that worship-not the innovations of American religious culture. Further, it places the responsibility for correcting aberrant practice with the pastor. Yet it notes that proper practice can only be achieved through patient cateches~s. "The desired unifornuty in the ceremonies is to be brought about especially b~7 the adoption of sound Lutheran agendas (church buoks)" (123 When one couples our time's advocacy of a distinction Lwtn-een I, substance and style and telling the other story of Lutherans at worship" with an inborn American distrust of Roman Catholicism, the consistent Lutheran pastor may find himself between a rock and a hard place. One temptation is to "pope" as one critic of the General Synod recently did.'That is no solution. A better approach is to affirm the "common consent of the pure Lutheran Iiturgies ot the sixteenth century," and to Iink that with the patient catech~zation of our people in a distinctively Lutheran cultus. True Lutheranism w~ill a1iz.a;~ be accused of being "somewhat allied to peper~," but only in so iar as popery affirms the catholic heritage oi the church For the record, above the dtar at Pastor Sihler's church today stands a statue of Saint Paul with a sword and another one of Saint Peter. holding the keys. In the middle is a statue of Jesus with hands extended inviting believers to Him. On the front of the altar is a cawing of Christ instituting the Lord's Supper and on the altar proper is a crucifix. Where are the four Evangelists? Their statues are on the sides of the pulpit. Lawl-once R. Rast lr. 2~avid Gustavson, Lutherans in Crisis: The Qrrestiorr of Identity !n the American Republic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).