Christianity, and particularly much of Lutheran Christianity, has taken some pretty interesting twists and turns in recent years. Not limited to the United States, but perhaps more endemic here than elsewhere, the past four to five decades have seen a wholesale abandonment of doctrines of the Christian faith in favour of a number of false gospels and false religions masquerading as Christian love.
On one end of the spectrum, much of mainline Christianity has collapsed into being a social or socialistic religion of love, as nebulously defined as possible. On the other end, American Evangelicalism has marketed an individualistic idea of love represented by the demand, if not command, to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ, as if the second person of the Trinity incarnate could be anything but personal. By merely praying to “accept Jesus into your heart,” whatever that might entail, one is supposedly saved, and another notch is made on the tally board after the altar call. What, however, do those individuals “accepting” Jesus really know about Jesus, and which Jesus are they finding so acceptable? In this blind date, blind faith relationship, what differentiates a “personal relationship” from a “designer relationship” with Jesus?
In either direction, love seems to lead the charge to marginalize sound theological teaching (doctrine) in favour of social or individual interpersonal goodwill. Thus, one frequently hears phrases like, “It does not matter what the denomination teaches as long as they go to church.” Similarly, “There is only one God, just different ways to get to him (or her or it).” Also, “God is love. The best way to serve God is just to be loving.” Perhaps worst of all, “COEXIST.”
With this mind set, well-intentioned “churches” compete to make the Christian faith as bland as possible, paradoxically, to attract people to the Christian faith! Rather than offer the Christian faith, however, what people get is little more than a “warm-funzy” religious experience called Christian worship. According to this philosophy, by “dumbing down” the Bible and sound doctrine and meaningful worship, somehow church will magically become not only attractive but also acceptable to non-believers! Consequently, such “loving” intentions leave the church, its message, and its worship to be defined not by God and his word but rather by what church leaders think nominal Christians and even non-Christians want! Making Christian mission into non-Christian mission, all in the name of love and religious good works, could hardly be more backwards.
What might Luther make of such ideas? He would call them a heinous crime. In fact, for Luther violating the worship of God, and the sound doctrine behind it, is a greater crime “than murder, adultery, or another crime.” In his commentary on Deuteronomy, Luther writes,
“For to sin against the worship of God is to sin against faith and the Word. Here one should give no heed to love or sympathy, since by it God is offended and lost, together with the Word, which is the leader, light, teaching, and rule of the whole life and of all works; when you have lost it, no work can be guided, no life established. When you sin against love, but the Word and doctrine remain intact meanwhile, only the work is lost, and it can be restored and repaired according to the rule of the Word. So immeasurable is the distance that separates a sin against faith and the Word from a sin against love and works. For love bears all, endures all (1 Cor. 13:7). Faith bears nothing, and the Word endures nothing; the Word must be perfectly pure, and doctrine must always be thoroughly sound, that it may be the goal of life and the guide for works. Love can be infirm and impure, and must be daily increased and made perfect” (Luther’s Works, 9:166).
In that light, if we really loved our neighbours, then more than anything else we should and would want to give them the perfect gift, namely the pure Word of God. By giving them the pure Word of God we are giving them the pure love of God (John 1:1-18, 3:16), which makes our sinful ideations of love pale into insignificance. In this time of Lent, how prepared and able is St. Luke’s, individually and collectively, to offer the pure Word of God and thus the pure love of God to those for whom Christ, the word of God incarnate, died?
