So what is the 1517 Legacy Project? If you send your youth to Higher Things you will definitely want to know because the 1517 Legacy Project contributors have been (Donovan Riley), are this year (Dan van Voorhis) and certainly will be speakers in the future. Now it can be a little confusing because some Christ Hold Fast contributors are also 1517 Legacy contributors (Donovan Riley and Chad Bird). 1517 Legacy Project contributors speak at Christ Hold Fast events (Donovan Riley, Chad Bird, Dan van Voorhis, Scott Keith) and Christ Hold Fast contributors will speak at the big Here We Still Stand conference (Daniel Price, Donovan Riley, Chad Bird, Matt Popovits, Elyse Fitzpatrik, Jessica Thompson). In fact it seems that they really have joint conferences. This is a Christ Hold Fast conference:
Here is the 1517 Legacy Project "Here We Still Stand" conference listed on the Christ Hold Fast website in the listing of Christ Hold Fast events.
To say that the two groups have very close ties is an understatement. But since Higher Things speakers from the 1517 Legacy Project will lead Google capable teens to Christ Hold Fast, and Higher Things speakers from Christ Host Fast will lead them to 1517 Legacy Project (this has already been case ever since Donovan Riley became a contributor to both), it does seem helpful to say something briefly about Christ Hold Fast. Christ Hold Fast says:
We are a Law & Gospel collective of creative contributors, dedicated to proclaiming to people how Christ remains faithful even when we are faithless (2 Timothy 2:13). We provide a voice for Christians who are both Sinner & Saint (Romans 7:15-25). We promote the bad news that you are a greater sinner than you think (Isaiah 64:6-7) and the good news that Christ is a greater savior than you can imagine (Romans 5:6-11).
I am not entirely sure what a "Law & Gospel collective" is. But what is clear is that Christ Hold Fast wants to emphasize that salvation is God's free gift that can't be earned, and that American evangelical views about sanctification are wrong. They say:
We hold that life is not about what we do for God, but about what God has done for us.
We hold that “Gospel” is not something you can live, but it is something you can believe.We hold that grace is freely offered to all, and we need it just as much as everyone else.
That sounds good. In fact it is good. But the first problem you are going to find is that Christ Hold Fast is mainly aimed at American evangelical Christians who have grown weary of the legalistic and moralistic view of sanctification. This also means that Christ Hold Fast is basically incapable of speaking about how Christians should be encouraged and exhorted to live in ways that reflect God's will and ordering of the world. They are a classic case of soft antinomianism. Yet let me hold off on that for now, because this blog post is about the 1517 Legacy Project and we will see the exact same thing there (which perhaps is why the two groups are so tight).
The second problem is that Christ Hold Fast is not Lutheran (remember, it's a "Law & Gospel collective"). That means that there are contributors from Christian traditions that reject the Lutheran teaching about Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar, among other things. So, if your youth gets to the the Christ Hold Fast website and starts reading an article by Paul Dunk they are hearing a pastor at a Presbyterian Church in America congregation. Of if they find something by Evan Welcher they are learning from the senior pastor at First Christian Church in Glenwood, Iowa.
But now, back to the question at hand: What is the 1517 Legacy Project? They say:
1517 The Legacy Project serves churches and the world by providing a message of hope for those broken by the church, supplying theological resources that strengthen congregations, and modeling ways of engaging the culture in a manner that is thoughtful, courageous, and Christ-centered.
To be honest, I am not entirely sure what that means. "Broken by the church" is certainly an odd phrase. But if you read around a little it quickly becomes clear that it is code largely for people who have come out of American evangelicalism and have been "broken" by the legalistic and moralistic teaching about sanctification. And if this sounds familiar, it should. It is the same thing you find at Christ Hold Fast.
If you go to the page that answers the question "What is 1517" you will find Martin Luther. Immediately you will begin feeling good. After all, this must be Lutheran. The curious thing is that when you look around the main pages that explain 1517 and describe its resources, you almost never find the word "Lutheran." It does occur in the description of the blog The Jagged Word, which refers to "a distinctly Lutheran perspective." But otherwise it isn't present. I don't think I have missed any, but if I have missed one or two, we can at least say that it is not in any way emphasized. And that does seem odd, because after all this is the 1517 Legacy Project and Martin Luther is plastered all over their explanation.
What you will find very clearly expressed is salvation, by grace, through faith, on account of Christ and apart from works. This is very good. In fact it goes on to say:
The “You are forgiven!” spoken to us every Sunday in church captures the essence of this free community. The study of Scripture is a main component, and we want to encourage that (And we have an embarrassment of riches compared to 500 years ago—it’s only gotten better!), but so is education in general, and the gifts Jesus has given by promise to His family, the church—physical means by which we might commune with Him and be a part of His kingdom, the Lord’s Supper and Baptism.
These things are not listed in order of importance; they are all important. Can you imagine if the whole church was just about these things?
This sounds really good. Here we even have Baptism and the Lord's Supper mentioned, along with a reference to physical means. But when you keep reading, you soon run into something odd. Because it goes on to say:
And we want you to join us. We’re not saying to leave your church or anything like that, but check out what we have to offer and use it to your heart’s content. We pray that God will use what we have to help you—to strengthen and edify and comfort and set you free.
I would think that the invitation to join the 1517 Legacy as defined by the 1580 Book of Concord would be inviting people to join us in a church that shares this confession. After all, does the 1517 Legacy say that justification by grace through faith apart from works is good enough if you reject the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar? Martin Luther certainly didn't think so when he met with Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529.
But perhaps you will say I am overstating the case. I might too, were it not for the piece "How to Choose Your Church" by Rod Rosenbladt. This piece is helpful for illustrating what the 1517 Legacy Project is about for several reasons. First, Rosenbladt is the legend at the 1517 Legacy Project (pictured here first and speaking here). Simply stated, when it comes to the 1517 Legacy, he's the man. Second, lest I be accused of cherry picking a post, the 1517 Legacy itself lists this post among "Featured blog posts from 1517 The Legacy Project & Christ Hold Fast." And there it is again - we see here on the 1517 Legacy website that the 1517 Legacy and Christ Hold Fast simply can't stay apart.
Rosenbladt begins by saying:
We’ve all been asked, “How do I pick a church to attend?” And it is not a small question! In one way or another, we at 1517legacy.com are always attempting to answer that question—and in a Biblical way!
Wise laity will select a parish by what it confesses. Many of us long ago eliminated the Roman Catholic choice and did this on the basis of what it confesses. Fewer of us have done the same with “evangelical” parishes, but in days such as ours, that is important as well. What does my “evangelical” parish confess… or does it? Rome’s answer is detailed, but many “evangelical confessions” could be written on a postage stamp. But that is important for us all to know, too (and to notice if eschatology is the center of their confession) For a layman to choose on the basis of a church’s confession requires that it actually has a confession.
Now certainly this is a great start as he leads a person to the Evangelical Lutheran Church that confesses the Book of Concord. Then Rosenbladt really kicks it into high gear as he extols Luther and the doctrine of justification:
During the time of the Reformation, the Lutheran writers put major emphasis on the nature of our plight (a view of sin that was “in-depth,” as well as emphasis on the nature of the faith that saves). That meant an analysis of Christ’s claims about Himself, as well as His claims regarding His death and what it would do for sinners. For this Luther and his followers were charged with being “one trick ponies,” with talking only about Christ as our Substitute, our Lamb and not much else. Were there time in a blog to answer that charge, I’d attempt it—but time limits.
What Luther and his early followers were doing was definitely hierarchical (“What is the most basic message of the Bible?”) and their answer was, “For sinners, it is who Jesus was and what His death did for sinners.” All other subjects—even Biblical subjects—were subservient to an accurate view of the Person and work of Jesus Christ for sinners. Could they have erred in this? Sure, they could have. For example, the most important theme of the Bible could be the “improvement of sinners?” Or an “inside track on what is coming in the future,” or any of a hundred other subjects. What a church confesses as to “what is the central message of the Bible” is defining.
The 16th century was, as Dr. Roland Bainton points out, a “theological century.” To attempt to grasp the 16th century apart from the categories of sin, of Christ’s Person and work, and of the nature of saving faith is, according to Bainton, virtually hopeless (for example, attempts to understand it via the growing nationalism, the decline of feudalism, etc. will inevitably fail to “grasp” what was unique to that era.) So what was unique about the Reformation’s answers to the central question of whether or how sinners could be justified, given that God the Creator is perfectly holy, and that He demands of His creatures a complete holiness—both outward and inward? Luther and his followers attempted to answer that question in terms of Christ’s Person and work on behalf of us sinners. And they insisted that the Bible’s answer was certainly not (to use today’s evangelical buzzword) a “transformation of sinners.” Rather, it was in terms of who Jesus was and what His death accomplished for sinners.
Some of us have tried to get this across by using “column ‘J.’” The message of the Reformers was that there is one single element in that column: Jesus Person and the effects of His substitutionary death. To add anything else to that column is to vitiate, to lose what St. Paul says that “justification” is [see Galatians throughout]. Many passages speak of “… a righteousness of God apart from the law.” What in heaven’s name could such a “righteousness” be? Is not all “righteousness” a matter of human obedience to law? Answered the Reformers, saving righteousness inheres only in Christ’s righteousness—and, wonder of wonders—He was and did this not for Himself, but rather for us sinners! His righteousness is a righteousness that saves, while our supposed “righteousness” is polluted top-to-bottom, is our problem and certainly not our “answer!”
Rosenbladt is rolling with stuff we all agree is great, and he has prepared the reader for the church where he can find this and the Means of Grace by which this forgiveness and salvation is delivered: the Word, Holy Baptism,Holy Absolution and the Sacrament of the Altar.
But in the next paragraph, things get puzzling, for he writes:
So, back to our initial question: “How do I select a church?” Luther would answer, “Only one with a theology that centers on the Person and work of Christ for you!” If he was right on this, 90% of American Protestant churches would fail to qualify (an “altar call” at the end of the service is not the same as preaching Christ crucified as sinner-saving!) Does a given parish have a liturgy? Does it force you to confess your sins as genuine sins (“mistakes” is not enough!)? Does it present Christ as the saving answer to your plight, viz., your need for a holiness which you cannot possibly self-produce? (Lutherans would add words about Baptism freely giving to sinners Christ and the benefits of His death, the same for the Lord’s Supper.)
The initial part is great. Then we have liturgy and confession. But the last sentence is set off by parentheses and says, "Lutherans would add words about Baptism freely giving to sinners Christ and the benefits of His death, the same for the Lord’s Supper." Why is this in parentheses? It is somehow not essential? And what does it mean to say "Lutherans would add" words about Baptism and the Lord's Supper? This isn't just a "Lutheran" thing. Lutherans confess that this is a catholic and apostolic thing. It's an essential thing. I mean, he is supposed to be helping them to choose a church and Lutherans - confessional Lutherans - confess that, "The church is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel (Augsburg Confession VII.1).
Then he concludes with this paragraph:
If a parish presents Jesus Christ as a sufficient cure for our malady (“justification” as a declaratory righteousness that suffices in the face of God’s law), consider that parish. Correlatively, if this theme is absent (or obscure), try another parish, go on till you find one that does preach, sings about, prays on the basis of, etc. that Christ. If the Reformers were right, all other “Christs” are bogus. “Run away! Run away!”
And there you have it. Despite the window dressing language about Baptism and the Lord's Supper, that really isn't part of the goal. The goal is a church that has justification by grace through faith on account of Christ and apart from works. For it is such a church that will bring respite to those American evangelicals who have been "broken by the church." Rosenbladt probably considered Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, FL to be such a church when Tullian Tchividjian was pastor there and was a participant at Christ Hold Fast events with him.
But that is not the kind of church that confessional Lutherans consider to be the goal. And that is the problem with the 1517 Legacy Project. You hear about Luther there and find some familiar Lutheran theology, and people assume it is Lutheran. But it's not enough to be "Lutheran." After all, this is "Lutheran" too:
Higher Things and it's call to "Dare to be Lutheran" has always been about being confessional Lutherans. That is not the goal of the 1517 Legacy Project. Small wonder that the Lutheran Confessions are almost never mentioned.
You see this in the way that, like Christ Hold Fast, the 1517 Legacy Project is unable or unwilling to speak about how Christians should be encouraged and exhorted to live in ways that reflect God's will and ordering of the world. Here too is classic soft anitnomianism. Something which is not confessional Lutheran.
On a previous occasion when I wrote about the involvement of Higher Things with Donovan Riley and his Christ Hold Fast ways I wrote words that apply equally well to the 1517 Legacy Project:
The 1517 Legacy Project is Lutheran - but it is not Lutheran in a 1580 Legacy way. It is not a confessional Lutheran organization (and of course, in its defense, it never claims to be). If you are a pastor or parent, the prospect of Higher Things leading your youth to the 1517 Legacy Project (or Christ Hold Fast) should be a great concern. The fact that the Higher Things leadership continues to involve more individuals from these organizations and to advertise the 1517 Legacy Project to the youth should be a great concern. This is a path that leads away from what Higher Things should be.While I have focused specifically on soft antinomianism (or the "new antinomianism" as Todd Wilken calls it), he has worked with the broader framework within which it is a part. He has devised a list of points that describe what has been called "radical Lutheranism." I maintain that when you read Donovan Riley and Chad Bird, it is almost as if Wilken was writing a description of them. They are brilliant in the simplicity and brevity with which they summarize a profound subject:1. Sin is reduced to self-justification.
2. The Christian's struggle against sin is replaced with a struggle against feelings of guilt.
3. The Christian's struggle against sin is described as futile, or as an attempt at self-justification.
4. Repentance is assumed, even in unbelievers.
5. The Holy Spirit's uses of the Law are abandoned one by one (usually in the order of 3, 1, 2)
6. The distinction between Justification and Sanctification is blurred in statements like "Sanctification is simply the art of getting used to justification."
7. Christian cooperation in Sanctification, clearly and carefully taught in the Lutheran Confessions, is equated with cooperation in Justification.
8. The Gospel is often replaced with "We're all sinners, who am I to judge?"
9. Scripture's warnings against falling away from the faith are minimized of ignored.
10. Scripture is often searched to find the sinner, rather than the Savior.
11. The sins of Biblical figures are exaggerated or sensationalized.
12. Teaching is often guided by a reaction to the errors of moralistic evangelicalism, rather than God's Word or the Lutheran Confessions.
13. Man's sinful condition is described as though a person's sin qualifies him to receive Grace, rather than Grace being without qualification or condition in man.
14. Any encouragement or instruction in Good Works is considered de facto legalism.
15. The Law itself is viewed as the source of legalism, rather than man's sinful misuse of it.
All of these things contradict Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. As you read content written by Lutheran authors, watch for these themes. They aren't hard to find. They are always found mixed in with a very strong Gospel emphasis. But their recurring presence ends up in a denial of God's Word and what it teaches about the Gospel.
I'm not sold that this is nearly as corrupted as the author here makes it out to be, though I'm open to correction. The author brings us through 818 words and 3,875 characters of Rod Rosenbladt's entry, finding total agreement with all of it, before we're told that one sentence apparently nixes the whole of the entry -- not because it says anything heretical or even logically offensive, but because it was placed inside parentheses? Really? Two characters on a keyboard? Are we straining at gnats here?ReplyDelete
Look, if the purpose is to solidify Lutherans in their Lutheran faith then, sure, I suppose the cynic could find Rosenbladt's entry somewhat wanting. But if the purpose was simply to provide an entry point for the un-churched or the essentially un-churched (let's face it, that's what most of the American Evanglical self-help ecclesial communities are...), then isn't this a welcome approach? The way his argument and study is built will only lead to a deeper study of the Confessions. What else should we be doing? Strapping the Book of Concord to the head of the un-churched until they confess it through osmosis?
It seems to me an incredible stretch to say that the Christ Rosenbladt presents is not the one who is present in and gifts us the Sacraments. He even says in that same paragraph; "Only [select a church] with a theology that centers on the Person and -->work of Christ for you!<--" How else is that work of Christ proclaimed other than through the Word and Sacraments? Yet the author goes on to speculate ("Rosenbladt probably..."). Unless I'm missing something here, and I very well could be, this seems a fabricated fear.
You are choosing to ignore the very words that Rosenbladt has written.Delete
I have to say that I appreciate Pastor Surburg's scholastic work. However, I wonder sometimes that he makes more out of what isn't said, or how its said is what makes the movement wrong. Marburg was about the sacraments. Luther's point of view was that when it comes to the proper understanding of the sacraments, it is best to go with Christ's words "This is MY body...this is MY blood." for which Zwingli and the others couldn't comprehend because they held their own reason above that of scripture (God couldn't possibly have meant what Luther is implying). They didn't understand the ubiquity of Christ being in more than one place at a time and to them he was glued to a chair at God's right hand.ReplyDelete
I personally see what these two groups are trying to accomplish is to market the Lutheran Church differently than it has been done before in order to reach out to those who are coming from an American Evangelical background.
Whenever I have attempted to discuss the Lutheran understanding of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper with American Evangelicals, I have difficulty getting them past their own understanding of the sacraments. They insist that Baptism is covenantal and tie it to the law making it a testimony of their decision to accept Jesus into their heart. If one tries to explain that it's not what they do that saves them, but what God has done through Christ and that Baptism saves, they and their reason can't comprehend it.
I'm not saying Pastor Surburg is wrong in his assessment, but that I refuse to completely judge 1517Legacy, or Christ Hold Fast until it's been proven that they are completely heretical by God's word.
Pastor Scott Strohkirch (TAALC)
"Completely" in "completely heretical" is superfluous, given that a person, teaching or sect either is or is not persistent in adhering to false teaching.Delete
The persons and groups that Pastor Surburg writes about here are indeed persistent in their false teaching, namely, their promotion of "soft-antinomianism," a phrase coined by Pastor Surburg.
Beneath the surface, however, also lie the denial of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ, the eternal law, the third use of the law, natural law, and a perverted view of justification and sanctification.
Pastor Surburg and all Bible-Lutherans are obliged to bring to light and to critique these false teachings, and to warn believers against them, on the basis of God's Word.
These false teachings are indeed "heresy," as the original Greek meaning of the word implies. They are also cause for a separation at the Lord's Table (1 Cor. 11:19-20).