What is the fourth commandment?
Answer: You shall honor your father and mother.
What does this mean?
Answer: We should fear and love God so that we do not despise or anger our parents and other authorities, but honor them, serve and obey them, love and cherish them.
In its letter of April 22, the Council of Presidents (COP) indicates that the 4th commandment is the rationale for its unwllingness to critique or question an action of the Board for Communications Services and its Executive Director. Is this a proper application of the 4th commandment?
In his small and large catechisms, Luther greatly expands the scope of the 4th commandment as he does all the other commandments of the Decalogue. The original context of the 4th commandment in the Torah deals with father and mother. Operating out of the understanding that "out of the authority of parents all other authority is derived and developed" (LC I,141), Luther expands the concept of parent to include "other authorities." He speaks of "fathers by blood, fathers of a household, and father of the nation" (I, 158), and then adds a fourth, "spiritual fathers," that is, those who "govern and guide us by the Word of God" (I,159). These are the authorities instituted by God.
The COP seems to have created a fifth category of father, namely, "fathers by by-law." This is a very dangerous way of thinking. If elected and appointed boards and officers of the synod are viewed as "father and mothers" under the 4th commandment, this would place them over us in the way of parental authority and make their decisions and edicts have the same force as the Word of God. I sincerely hope that the COP does not mean to say that the churches and pastors who comprise the synod are children of the synod and their elected officials who serve as stewards of our common resources are their parents. These offices and boards are man-made offices and board, they are not divinely instituted authorities such as parents, government, and pastors.
The COP has evaded its own pastoral responsibility by cloaking the matter in the 4th commandment, in effect saying, "it's none of our business to interfere or criticize David Strand's parental decisions."
Obedience to men is always a conditional obedience, for "we ought to obey God rather than men." While the Reformers were willing to be obedient to the bishops for the sake of peace and unity, they did not permit the 4th commandment to interfere with their strong criticism of the false theology and injustices of the papacy and the Roman episcopacy. Blind, deaf, and mute acquiescence to leadership, whether divinely or humanly instituted, is hardly the way of the 4th commandment. Were that the case, the Reformation would have been sinful, which some in the papacy maintained and still do today.
The small and large catechisms do not speak of "trust" under the 4th commandment. We are nowhere commanded to trust parents and other authorities. The Psalmist says, "Put not put your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help" (Ps 146:3). The framers of our nation's government rightly established a system of checks and balances, recognizing that men in authority are not to be trusted. Jesus did not trust those who followed Him, nor did He trust the religious leaders of His day, "for He knew all men." Anyone in authority who says "trust me" cannot be trusted.
Of course, we are to deal with one another clothed with compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing and forgiving each other as we are forgiven (Col 3:12). As baptized believers, we dare do no less. We are also called in the same passage to let the Word of Christ dwell among us richly, teaching and admonishing one another. This may involve disagreement, dissent, and even conflict at times. The ancient synods bear witness to this fact. We dare not let a misuse of the 4th commandment stifle our speaking the truth in love, especially when it comes to the actions of those whom we have elected to serve us.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It appears that instead of dealing with the issues (pun included) head on, they used the OT "Get Out of Jail" card. The NT version is "Judge Not".
The issue isn't 4th Commandment but of oversite and taking responsibility. It appears that no one is willing to stand up and take responsibility nor question those who make such a decision.
Thank you so much for commenting on that point in the CoP letter. Was wondering about it the minute I read it. Good to get a pastor's take on it.
Who are the God ordained authorities about whom we should not speak evil? (Acts 23:4-5). And who are the man-ordained authorities who are open to criticism? Is it true that Jesus and John criticized the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law because they were man-ordained, but did not criticize the High Priest because that office is God ordained? (Matthew 3:6-8 and 12:33-35 & Acts 23:4-5). Did Jesus or any of the Apostles criticize the Sanhedrin? Are Christians allowed to criticize the Sanhedrin?
(Sorry, I'm just a layman and not even Lutheran Church MS. I cherished KFUO "Law and Gospel" and "Issues, Etc." because I was learning so much that I never knew. I was a brand new listener and was excited to discover such a treasure. Now, it's taken away, and I'm just sad. And of top of that, I'm not LCMS so there is nothing I can do. If I had only known there were financial difficulties, I could have helped).
Thank you for your web log.
Catechesis cannot compete with the Anxious Bench.
Submit now.
Charles Finney
www.chuckfinney.wordpress.com
The Sanhedrin was a de jure humano (human) institution. In Matt. 23:2-3, Jesus says, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Yet Jesus openly criticized the Pharisees and teachers of the Torah for their religious hypocrisy and for teaching the Torah as a Torah of works rather than faith.
In Acts 23:4-5, Paul "apologizes" for speaking in the way he did to the high priest, though one detects a hint of sarcasm. The high priesthood at the time was a political institution with the high priest being a political appointee. Not quite what God instituted.
In Acts 5:29, Peter and the other apostles intentionally disobey the orders of the Sanhedrin not to preach the name of Jesus. They were, of course, beaten for their confession, which is how it always works with religious institutions.
Amen. The appeal to the 4th commandment in this situation is very disturbing, though not surprising. Thank you again for the analyses in your blog.
This blog made me think of the statement "This isn't your grandfathers church" in a whole new light. When I hear this statement I always think it is implying 'it is our church,' church of the baby boomer. Of course it is neither our church nor our grandfather's church, it is Christ's church.
However, the statements of our leadership seem to reveal that they view it as their church. Could they come between God, grandpa, and us. Aren't they in a way saying, 'You shall honor, serve and obey church administrator X first and foremost, and then you may honor God, father and mother' as long as they don't disagree?
The nail has been hit on the head!
Clarification: Was this sentence intended: "I sincerely hope that the COP means to say that the churches and pastors who comprise the synod are children of the synod and their elected officials who serve as stewards of our common resources are our parents."
OR, was the intent to say: " I sincerely hope that the COP DOES NOT mean to say that the churches and pastors who comprise the synod are children of the synod and their elected officials who serve as stewards of our common resources are our parents.
Please confirm intent. Thanks.
As one who joined the Lutheran Church specifically because it was the only Potestant church that could justify its existence to my satisfaction, I have to say that my decision could be severely undermined by this application of the Fourth Commandment.
If questioning the decisions of an elected or appointed officer violates the Fourth Commandment, then so does questioning the decision of a bishop or pope; and in that case, we'd all better be making a run for the Tiber.
"Clarification: Was this sentence intended: "I sincerely hope that the COP means to say..."
It was the latter. Thanks for spotting the error.
I have a question then.
Is synodical authority that of the left hand kingdom, delegated as is the authority of a government, or a school teacher?
Or is it that of the right hand kingdom, as in an elder/overseer/servant-shepherd in the faith. (would this then be part of third commandment)
If the former, they have a point. If the latter, the point of avoiding pastoral responsibility is valid, but so is a call to heed their words.
It seems to me that there are both views taken by members of the synod, and some fluctuation between the views, depending on a particular issue. What often passes for Waltherian polity, I believe, would put this in the 4th commandment.
Since the synod is by its own self-definition "advisory," the answer is none of the above. Itis neither a left-handed government nor a right-handed church. It is simply a vehicle for churches of the same confession and practice and a steward of their resources enabling them to do larger projects such as run seminaries and colleges, deploy missionaries, and publish stuff.
Post a Comment