The Self-Donation of God. Jack D. Kilcrease

      The Self-Donation of God

      A Contemporary Lutheran approach to Christ and His Benefits

      Copyright © 2013 Jack D. Kilcrease. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

      Wipf & Stock

      An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

      199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

      Eugene, OR 97401

      www.wipfandstock.com

      ISBN 13: 978-1-62032-605-3

      EISBN 13: 978-1-62189-608-1

      Manufactured in the U.S.A.

      Unless otherwise stated, scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible. Please use standard language for this Bible translation.

      This work is dedicated to my parents for all they have done for me,

       not least raising me in the Christian faith.

      Also I want to thank my wife for her love and guidance.

      Lastly, I would like to dedicate this book also to my dearly departed doktorvator Ralph Del Colle for his work with me and his guidance.

      Foreword

      Looking for a Unifying Principle

      A theologian’s task is developing a theology around a unifying theme that is descriptive of the entire theological enterprise and permeates all its parts. This is not unique to theology, but is required of particular philosophies and with most every other scholarly discipline. Without a discoverable unity any system disintegrates and becomes inaccessible to those attempting to come to terms with it. Before going any further, we can say that Dr. Jack Kilcrease is a theologian in every sense of the word. In the current state of theological affairs, no one idea or principle comes close to providing an umbrella under which what theologians do can be placed. In former days systematic theologians, who were simply known as theologians without further description of their special interest, pursued their tasks around traditional and widely held and known principles. Such was the case in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, when particular theologies, that later formed basis for the mainline denominations, arose and could be identified by one or two prominent themes. Each church tradition had a principle making it distinct from others and by which each one recognized itself as unique. One could not be confused with another. Lutheran theology was not Reformed and vice versa and so it was. The unifying principle of each tradition permeated every article of the faith and provided unity to the theological system. Lutherans saw justification as the core principle that surfaced in such doctrines as the sacraments and the ministry which existed for the sake of declaring the sinner righteous. So accepting the law’s condemnation, they heard and believed the gospel and were relieved from the impending judgment of God and the fear it created. Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, and other groups rooted in the teachings of Ulirch Zwingli and John Calvin saw the center of theology in divine sovereignty, a doctrine that played itself out in what they said about the covenant as a contract between God and the believer that dare not be broken, providence and election. Methodism, not strictly a Reformation era phenomenon, was an eighteenth century reaction to Reformed doctrine of election and saw the impetus for salvation not in God’s sovereignty but in the will of each human being, a precursor of the rationalism of the Enlightenment. Later holiness groups and today much of American Evangelicalism follows in what is commonly called the Arminian tradition enveloped in Methodism. Before the Reformation, Catholicism was a covering for various theological approaches, but the Council of Trent in reaction to the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith insisted that works had a place alongside of faith. Some of these works that contributed to one’s salvation were specifically religious ones like doing penance, making pilgrimages, and participating in the Mass. In resolving theological differences, the bishop of Rome had the last word. Around these doctrines Roman Catholicism took shape. For Protestant heirs of the Reformation the scriptures exercised this role, but the sola scriptura principle as it came to be known, multiplied differences and did not provide the hope from principle of unity. This would have to be found elsewhere.

      The survival of classical principles that determined the faith of the churches emerging from the Reformation are heading towards extinction in identifying what mainline denominations confessed. Their confessions or more properly statements of what they believed have been gradually disintegrated by a centrifugal diffusion that has emptied the core of these older theological traditions. Some Lutherans and the Reformed remain steeped in their Reformation heritages and continue to be at odds with each other, just as Luther and Zwingli were, on such essential issues as God, the person and work of Christ, and the sacraments, but they are in an ever decreasing minority. Dr. Kilcrease reassesses these differences and finds that they are still valid in how Lutherans and Reformed differ from each other. Interest in historical differences does not consume the interest of theologians in the mainline churches, who are willing to let bygones be bygones. Similarly those who sit in the pews are unlikely to know or be concerned about the distinctive beliefs of their churches and how these churches came to believe what they do. Identifying a principle holding the church and its beliefs together is no longer a concern and in many, perhaps most, cases impossible. This has opened the door to an endless round of ecumenical alliances with each church selling its birthright. The ecumenical movement in bringing together churches that were historically opposed to each other is like a tire that has gradually lost air and has gone flat. Into this situation syncretism has found an entrance. A Shinto altar can be found in a prominent New York City cathedral and sacred symbols of non-Christian religions often adorn the walls of Christian sanctuaries. An annual Reformation Day celebration once served the purpose of saying that one’s church was really different from those of others. This is less important today. Religious diffusion and diversity of principles are exacerbated by the rise and proliferation of churches that claim no denominational affiliation. More conservative churches may go under the banner of Bible churches and make a point of not being bound to one set of beliefs, life confessions, or official statements of any kind. Only the Bible demands their allegiance, so they say. On the other side of the ledger, community churches may not even make believing in the Bible a requirement. Membership is open to all those who reside in geographical proximity to their houses of worship. Both types of churches agree that the members can believe what they want. Locating a central theological core holding together these free standing congregations together is impossible, simply because there is none. What is believed in one year may not be believed in the next year and its members are not required to subscribe to any article of faith. Adherence to the Apostles’ Creed is off limits even to Evangelicals who are committed to the Bible’s inspiration and more likely to be open about their faith. They account for a good segment of the Protestant population. Congregations in mainline denominations with roots in the Reformation may not be able to identify the core of their belief. Allegiance to statements of faith is more a formality than theologically determinative. These churches have no constitutional-like documents to be referenced in cases of dispute.

      Another factor in the disintegration of theological cores in churches and their theologies is the division of study of theology into the sub-disciplines of biblical, systematic, historical and practical theologies. There is hardly a seminary, if any at all, that does not have its faculty divided into departments for each of these subdisciplines. A seminary or a university school of religion instructor is less likely to see him/herself as a theologian competent to handle the full range of theology. So one professor is a systematic theologian, another a biblical scholar, still another an historian and finally the practical theologian teaches how to get things done, a feature attractive to the American mind.