On Reformation Day, it’s good to consider why Lutherans are called “Lutherans”.  Names mean things.  They help to identify who we are.  The following passage from 17th century theologian Johann Gerhard briefly explains what “Lutheran” means (as well as “catholic” and “Christian”).

It is not we who call ourselves Lutherans. Rather, our adversaries call us that. We allow this to the extent that this title is an indication of the consensus that our churches have with the orthodox and catholic doctrine that Luther set forth from Holy Writ. Therefore we allow ourselves to be named after Luther, not as the inventor of a new faith but as the asserter of the old faith and the cleanser of the church from the stains of Papist dogmas. Consequently, we also do not reject the names “Christian” and “catholic,” nor do we render ourselves unworthy of them by the approval of any heretical dogma, as did the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. Rather, we are called “Christians” from Christ as the only Author and Teacher of our faith. We are called “catholics” from our consensus with the catholic faith. We are called “Lutherans” from Luther as the asserter and defender of that faith, but especially as the reformer whom God raised up.

—Johann Gerhard, On the Church (Theological Commonplace XXV), § 156.

Continue reading →

While I’m taking a slight detour from the standard fare of worship and music with this post, I think you’ll be intrigued by it.

This last week, noted atheist Christopher Hitchens lectured in Portland, OR.  In preparation for the event, local magazine Portland Monthly had a feature interview between Hitchens and Marilyn Sewell, a retired Unitarian minister.   You might think a discussion between an atheist and Unitarian wouldn’t be too interesting.  Guess again.  Hitchens, in certain respects, appears to have a stronger grasp of Christianity than Sewell.  The intent of the article was to focus on Hitchen’s views, but I finished it thinking more about Sewell’s beliefs.

Here are a few highlights from that interview.

Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is a generally fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Continue reading →