Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: I think that's pretty good, too. Hey, YouTube theologians, welcome to Q and a podcast. I'm Pastor Brian Wolfmuller, St. Paul and Jesus deaf Lutheran churches, joined by pastor Andrew Packer of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Collinsville, Illinois. Pastor Packer, I heard a room. Oh, I, there's, I'm interested if other people have heard rumors about you as well. If you have heard rumors about Pastor Packer, please share them in the comments.
I've heard lots of rumors and I'll hear a lot more. I heard a rumor that you're coming down here in a couple of weeks to the digital Catacombs conference. Is that true?
[00:00:29] Speaker B: That is actually true. That's amazing. You finally have a true one.
It's almost like you knew that was going to happen.
[00:00:36] Speaker A: July 2627 28.
So starting on Friday afternoon, all day Saturday, Sunday morning, church and bible class will be part of the theme, technology and theology a conference. Really? I got a digital catacomb. Sounds creepy, but it's a theology technology conference. And a lot of, I mean, it's kind of a twofold goal, right. Of the conference. On the one hand, how do we, how are we wary of the dangers of technology, especially invasive technology? Secondly, how can we use technology to further the gospel? So those two sorts of things are happening. So if you're watching this or listening on the podcast and you're interested in that, digital catacombs.com, you can come and meet Pastor Packer face to face everyone's goal and confirm the rumor. Is it, this is a rumor. True that you don't look like you're six eight on the video, but you are six eight in real life. Is that, can we confirm that rumor? You have to come to the conference and see.
[00:01:33] Speaker B: You know what's funny is that I think the pastor that replaced me in Pagosa, he's like 6768. So I'm pretty sure they could confirm that. Rumors not true because he's much smaller than I am.
[00:01:44] Speaker A: This is what people say when they meet me. They're like, oh, you're a lot shorter than I thought you were. Thanks. Thanks. Looking forward to seeing everyone at issues, et cetera, this weekend. They can confirm that. All right, we got some q to give some a to. Let's do it.
[00:01:59] Speaker B: All right, this is a really long question, so buckle up.
[00:02:02] Speaker A: All right.
[00:02:03] Speaker B: Can I get a cross tattoo on my shoulder?
[00:02:07] Speaker A: Bronner, back of the shoulder. We need more information.
[00:02:10] Speaker B: It doesn't say what color ink.
[00:02:12] Speaker A: How old are you? So the, I think that's a good question. Christians and tattoos.
I think there's two things to say here. One is that I do think the question of tattoos is an adiaphora. In other words, I do not think that we can say biblically that getting a tattoo is a sin. So I don't know, you can disagree with that or provide an alternative thought on that if you have it. And I'd like that, but I. So I don't think we can do. On the other hand, we can think theologically about the reality of tattoos. And here's what, you know, I don't know if this has happened to you and destiny. You're going to the wedding, like, to the wedding reception, and all of a sudden this happened to Carrie and I probably about five years ago. And we looked around and we realized we're part of the old crowd now.
And one of the indications, and you just notice it about, like, all of a sudden you realize that, like, the way that you're dressed, the way that you interact with people, the stable that you're sitting at, the language that you use, and also a distinct lack of tattoos everywhere marked us as old people because it's crazy now how prevalent tattoos are. It's no longer just, you know, the navy guys or the bikers or whatever. It's. It's kind of a. It is. I think now it's probably more likely if you meet someone in their twenties, they're more likely to have a tattoo than not have a tattoo. It's very interesting. And I. And so I've thought about this, about why, and I think that here's the danger for getting a tattoo for christians, and that is that you start to think of your body as distinct from yourself, as if you are acting on your body rather than your body being you.
And that little distinction of me versus my body is a. That's just one of the first steps towards gnosticism, this kind of dualistic understanding of the person that I am, that I am distinct from my body. I'm just. What does the gnostics say? That your body is your meat suit, and you got to fancy up your meat suit until you're out of it. And so I think that the prevalence of tattoos is an indication to me of the prevalence of that gnostic dualist attitude towards the body, and that's not a christian attitude towards the body.
So when we think of our bodies, we should think of the resurrection, because this is the body that will be raised from the dead. And it's an interesting question, maybe this. And I'd love to know your thoughts on this? Will our tattoos make it to the resurrection?
And I just don't think so. I mean, I guess it depends. So, anyway, that's my initial thoughts on that. And plus, you ask your parents. I mean, I don't know how old the person writing it is, but you should probably talk to your parents parents about that. That's the. That's the main answer. Talk to your dad.
[00:05:34] Speaker B: Pastor Wolfe Miller said I could get a tattoo, therefore.
[00:05:37] Speaker A: Yeah, it does.
[00:05:38] Speaker B: You can't tell me I can't.
That's probably, like, the starting questions, right? Like, why. Why do you want it?
What exactly are you getting? Because there's all kinds of symbols and things that people get that they don't realize that they're probably not something christians should put on their body. Right. Or you have an example recently of who was that, Kat von D, or whoever that was that converted. And she had all kinds of tattoos, and now she's. She's getting them, like, blacked over, because I think removing them, like, was the laser removal was too much or something. So they're, like, getting marked over because some of the symbols that were on there. And so I think those are things that least think through, like, what am I getting? Why am I getting it? And is this something I really want for forever? You know, like I said, something I want for the rest of my earthly life, at least, um, ask whether they're in the resurrection. That's an interesting question.
Um, I think, like you, I'd probably say no. Um, on the other hand, I do wonder about things like scars or various things. Uh, especially if. Maybe for the martyrs, especially seems like they might keep their scars just like Jesus did, as a testament to what they accomplished. Right. Yeah. I mean, so it's. It's part of who they are in that way. So. Not sure about that. I would lean towards no, as you did, but like you said, I think it's audiophora, but the underlying questions would be, why are you getting it? And we have to remember that, first and foremost, christians are already marked in our bodies by our baptism. Right. So our. We've already had the water upon us. Luther says that's. That's a mark on our body. It's a seal. The Bible says. Right. It's a guarantee of what's to come. And so I think we should at least start there, that I am marked in my body as a Christian in my baptism, even if it's not obviously visible. But then, and I believe, and I've seen some discussions on this, Christians in some parts of the world, it's very common to get crosses on. On hands or arms or shoulders or whatever. It's been very common historically for that to happen. I know that sometimes, like, in America, for a long time, right, tattoos were seen as just part of a rebellious kind of thing. Whereas I don't know if we could really say that today. Like you said, you go just about anywhere and there's tattoos everywhere. So I would.
I mean, if someone wanted to get a tattoo of a cross on their shoulder, I don't have any issues with it. I don't think biblically, I could say, I know some people point to Leviticus. You've heard this argument, I'm sure, right? Um, about not marking your bodies. And of course, there, it's talking about Pagana, like, pagan symbols and stuff, which is why you have to be careful what you put on your body, because there are pagan symbols that are associated with all kinds of weird and demonic things. But that same passage also talks about not cutting, like, the hair on the side of your heads, you know, and no one seems to follow that. It's one of those places in Leviticus where people are like, I don't like tattoos. So I'm going to pick this verse. I'm going to ignore the one about how my hair should look because I don't want to do that.
So that's the only line of reason I've seen most frequently from those who are just dead sent against him is that passage in Leviticus. But I don't think how you could apply that to a cross on someone's shoulder. I just. I don't see how you can make that jump.
[00:08:47] Speaker A: But here's practical advice, which is probably why people tune into this podcast. Like, we need practical advice on getting tattoos. But it's. Yeah, here's practical advice is it has to be easy to hide. Like, don't, you know, this is, again, just practical advice, but don't put it on. Like someone said, oh, in my baptism, I was marked on my forehead and my heart, so I'm gonna get a cross tattoo in my forehead.
Not. Not a good idea.
[00:09:15] Speaker B: So, yeah, I would generally avoid any face tattoos for a whole variety of reasons. I saw someone complaining they didn't get a job. Like, their face is covered in tattoos, and they didn't get a job, like, in the customer service, and they were surprised. And it's like, what? What did you expect? And there are still a lot of jobs. I mean, it's less than it used to be, but there are a lot of jobs that even if you have a tattoo in your arm, they want you to cover it up for whatever reason. So, yeah, be wise about it, at least unless you want to.
[00:09:41] Speaker A: If you want to work at Chipotle, then it's required to have a tattoo. But now this is, uh, there's something there, so. Okay, so here's really the advice is that if you desire to get a tattoo, that then I. This should be an occasion for you to think about the reality of your body. That's probably the sanctified advice, is that explore that desire for a tattoo in the context of the idea of gnostic dualism versus understanding ourselves as this unity of body and soul, breath, et cetera, that is our unified human nature. And reflect on that and see if that's what is at the underlying it. How. How solid is your confession of the resurrection that should be. I want a tattoo. Do I believe in the resurrection? That's. That's the line. That's the thinking.
[00:10:28] Speaker B: I think if you guys raise a million dollars, by the time I go to Texas, Pastor Wolfe Winger, I will on camera get tattoos.
[00:10:38] Speaker A: You know, the tattoo I always wanted to have was I wanted to have a tattoo of the picture of my face on the back of my head. And then I could. So you couldn't tell if I was coming or going. But then Carrie. And I said, honey, I could cover it up. And she said, only as long as you have hair. That'd be terrible. You go bald, and you're like, oh, no. Now I'm always either coming or going. You never know.
[00:11:01] Speaker B: That's a very frightening. Thank you for that image. Everyone has that now. You just scared everyone away from ever getting tattoos. All right, next one's on organ donation.
I have. I've heard you speak on cremation, and I've enjoyed the conversation immensely. This has led to further discussion about donating your body to science and the donation of organs. What further reading can I find on this topic, and what would be a proper response to the question? Um, and this is actually from a pastor.
And so, um, yeah, so I. I.
[00:11:33] Speaker A: Want to send it to you first on the. What other things can I read about this? Because you.
You read tons more than I do. Have you read anything on organ donation or not?
[00:11:44] Speaker B: I mean, I read some things. There's some, you know, trying to think if it's even been since seminary, some bioethics stuff on people debating this very question.
Because the background to the question, right, is if we're to be buried, if that's the best confession and if we're to treat our bodies with. With dignity and whatnot, is donating organs, is that crossing the line? And I've seen some people make some. Some arguments regarding organ donation that I have come across, but I couldn't point to exact places where they're against it because, um, it is a part of you. And there's all kinds of weird. I don't know if you've seen these. There's some weird discussions out there about somebody got a chart transplant from somebody and then they had memories or something of like this, from this other person's life. There's really some weird stuff out there that I doubt any of that can be verified by any kind of. Any kind of scientific, but I've seen those kind of arguments used. Like, it's a part of you, and it's a part of you in ways you don't fully understand, so you shouldn't do it. Well.
[00:12:50] Speaker A: So, I mean, I think it's true in one sense, is that, like, we're not like, again, this against this gnostic idea. We're not just like a cardinal. And it's like I crashed the car, and now I go to the junkyard and like, oh, you get spare parts and put in something else. We shouldn't think of ourselves as machines.
On the other hand, my body is not given to me for myself, but given to me for my neighbor. So if I should lay down my life for my friend, that I recognize that my body is an instrument to be. I am to be poured out in service to my neighbor. So I do think there's a way that if I can love my neighborhood by sharing something that they need, that I have. You know, there's a. You know, my. My son needs a kidney or whatever, or even after death, when I'm mostly done with the lungs for now, and someone else could use them. If there's a way that you could serve your neighbor, it just seems like an act of love. I mean, all the other complications involved. True. Like, we should respect the body, bury the body.
The body waits for the resurrection. But that's why we have a body, is to serve our neighbor. So I do think that if there's a way to do that, that we can. I don't think that we ought to say that the Christian must be an organ donor, that it's a required act of love. But I don't think, on the same thing, on the other side of things, that we could say that the Christian is forbidden from doing it, from either taking or giving an organ or a blood transfusion or whatever.
Our life is always from another body. I mean, this body that I have is from my mom and dad in a kind of weird, divinely instituted organ transplant of what it means to be conceived. So I don't know. I'm not sure that we can. Again, I don't think we can bring an obligation, but I also don't think that we could bring a.
Some sort of restriction that would say that it. That the Christian couldn't do it. I don't know.
[00:14:56] Speaker B: If you're. If you're buried, aren't your organs going to be gone anyway?
[00:15:02] Speaker A: Yeah, they're donating to the ground and.
[00:15:04] Speaker B: I mean, you dig somebody up and you're not finding their lungs still there. You know what I mean? Like, so I think that'd be a hard argument to make, that, uh, you somehow need them for the resurrected body or something. Like you're gonna get a new body, right? Like all that's gonna rot in the ground. Maybe. Maybe the harder question. I don't know what you think about this. What about donating? Because there are people that will donate not just organs, but their whole body to science, which I. I think that does cross into a different territory.
[00:15:35] Speaker A: That, that is strange. And that. And that for sure means you get. Yeah, a couple things happen when you donate your body to science. Number one, I mean, who knows what kind of weird stuff they do to the cadaver. But number two is the body is gone for a long time, so it's a matter of months. And then the body is cremated. Whatever's kind of left after they mess with it is cremated and then return to the family as cremains, as a burned body. So. And then you could be buried, etcetera. So that donating your body to science means that you're definitely going with cremation again, I don't think here it seems. It does seem like a harder question. I do think it would be possible, especially if there was something going on. Like, I don't know, if someone had a.
Like a resistance to a drug or in other words, if there's something peculiar about your particular body where you could serve the neighbor by letting the doctors kind of poke around after you died of, then I could see it as an act of love. Again, I don't think it would be forbidden, but again, it certainly can't be required.
And that's the thing, I think, to worry about the idea that our bodies could be recognized as such distinct things from ourselves that the government wouldn't feel bad for requiring oh, that body that belongs to the science or that belongs to whatever. No, no, no. We do, I think we do need to fight for kind of a bodily sovereignty even after death so that I can say, no, no, I want my body to be buried. Don't, you know, don't poke around with it, don't chop it up or whatever.
So hopefully that we don't have to face that anytime soon.
[00:17:24] Speaker B: All right, I know.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: Do you have other hesitancies on donating body to science?
[00:17:30] Speaker B: I think what you mentioned about just not knowing exactly what they're going to do with, especially nowadays, I don't know.
Nowadays it seems for me maybe there'd be more hesitancy just because. What exactly are you going to use it for and why? And I think that there's kind of.
[00:17:48] Speaker A: Provision that you can put in there. So I've done this twice where two people had died and they donated a body of science. So what we did pastorally was we had a memorial service for the person just not long after the death, like we would in the normal timeline. And then when the body was returned to the family, which was really sometimes one time, it was like two years later, the body's returned to the family, and then you go and you do an extensive graveside service where the body that's returned, the burned body is then buried.
It was kind of weird because it was such a long time and so that service was kind of a. But I think that was really important that you, that we sanctify all of these things with the Lord's word and prayer, all these events. So putting the body in the ground is, ought to be a sanctified event and ought to be part of the planning.
[00:18:44] Speaker B: All right, let's do one. Do Lutheran submission next?
[00:18:48] Speaker A: Yeah, sure.
[00:18:49] Speaker B: Might be a longer one. So this is actually a long question.
I have heard eastern orthodox folks say that they agree with much of Luther's thought, but find it intolerable that Lutherans would go outside the magisterial authorities and ordain their own pastors. Then the power and primacy of the pope know under the section heading the power and jurisdiction of bishops reads the right to call and ordain pastors belongs to the entire church. And bishops can never deprive congregations of this office of the ministry. The church, not bishops, has the authority, duty and right from God to provide ministers for herself. I think people are converting to Eastern Orthodoxy in Rome in part because they see this doctrine as some sort of justification for ecclesiastical anarchy. They might say something like Lutheran. His followers should have been martyred for the truth of the gospel rather than break the fourth commandment by not submitting to the church authorities. Could you speak to why such points are not true and how this doctrine within our confession is rooted in scripture? Also, I heard recently that CFW Walther was struggling with a similar question as he was leading congregations in America without the oversight of a bishop. Perhaps that also speaks to this point.
[00:19:54] Speaker A: Yeah. And CFW, there was a big. What was that called? There was a debate that happened and it was between Walther and there was a lawyer who came over with the Saxons and Altenberg. Is that right? Was that the Altenberg? Or is that something totally different? That's just what pops into my mind thinking about that. The Altenberg debate, huh?
[00:20:17] Speaker B: I am not sure.
[00:20:18] Speaker A: So. And Walther published a number of theses on church and ministry that. And he built on that doctrine of that the office of the keys belongs to the church from Matthew 18, where Jesus talks about the person going to the elders and then take it to the church, and that connection of the office of the keys and the existence of the church.
And so that was kind of, it was after some months of depression that Walter was digging into Lutheran, finding this, and then came to the conclusion that, no, no, we can have a good conscience about what's happened. Here it is.
I think the main biblical argument is where Paul undercuts himself and the angels and says that everything comes under the authority of the doctrine. If I or an angel from heaven would preach another gospel, let them be anathema. In other words, the principle of unity and continuity in the church is the doctrine. And any attempt to build a continuity in the office or in the church apart from the gospel is unauthorized. So that's the biblical basis of the lutheran argument, really is. Galatians chapter one, where Paul says, look, it doesn't even matter if I come and preach to you, something different than you should let me go and hold on to the gospel. So that was the issue at the time of the reformation. Can we preach the gospel? And the Catholic Church says, no. Not only did they say, it's not like they said, well, we don't agree with you, but you can keep preaching it. They did put them to death. They did imprison and martyr a number of the lutheran preachers.
We were looking at a bunch of these spots where the Catholics killed the Lutherans in England and Scotland when we were wandering around up there. And so there were a number of martyrs who died for their confession of the faith and the gospel of justification. But this idea that the church has some sort of.
That there is a continuity that is distinct from the preaching of the gospel has to be rejected. And thus the basis of orthodoxy, capital o orthodoxy and capital C Catholicism have to be rejected. I mean, that's their fundamental error. And so the thing that the question says, hey, this is the reason why people are going to these things. Well, that is, it's just, it's not of the scripture. I mean, I suppose the other text that the lutheran confessions references when Jesus talks about how the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Right? So you do have a continuity of office, but if it's not connected with a continuity of preaching, then it has to be rejected.
[00:23:25] Speaker B: It seems like the underlying presupposition of that whole argument is that the fourth commandment means that you can't even disobey wicked or unjust rulers, whether in the church or government. I mean, the Bible is full of christians disobeying tyrants when they go against the word of God. I mean, it's just full of it. So to think that a bishop who's going against the word of God is somehow unique and that he has to be obeyed no matter what, when the Bible is full of example after example of Christians from the Old Testament, New Testament saying, we must obey God rather than men, we're going to do the thing God has commanded and we're going to do what he says no matter what. And oftentimes that did include suffering the consequences. But the Lutherans did. Like, the Lutherans didn't go off and start their own church. They were kicked out, right? Which is part of what they like to leave off in this discussion is the Lutherans didn't just go off and do that like they were kicked out. And that's why they, they did all of that. So they did stay and suffer the consequences until that meant that they were cut off from that. And they showed themselves, you know, to be not in favor of the gospel when they did that. So this idea that they must be obeyed no matter what, or then even after we're kicked out, what are we supposed to do? Like, how do you submit to the bishop when they've excommunicated you and said, you're no longer, you're no longer part of us? You'd have to recant of the true teaching of the word of God to do that which would be sinning against God. So I think they've created like this, this idea in their mind that, oh, if the Lutherans had just done this, well, they tried to do that. I mean, even, even the thing quoted, right, that the primacy and power of the pope, what do we say? If you'd let us preach the gospel, and if you admit that you rule by human right, not divine right, then we'd, we'd be okay with this. And they say that several times in the confessions, and yet they weren't willing to do either of those things, right? So it's not like they set out to overthrow the church or to overthrow the church authority. They're seeking to bring it back in line with scripture, and then they did suffer the consequences for it, and they did submit to that. They didn't try to go back in and be a part of the church they're excommunicated from. They said, okay, we're on our own, but we have the word of God, so we're okay with that.
[00:25:32] Speaker A: Right. It the Lutherans are constantly calling. This is another part of the history that is, they were constantly calling for a council.
We need a council. We got to get together and sort of remember what we do with error in the church. We have a council and we hash it out and we decide from the word of God what is true. And the Rome kept saying, okay, no nevermind. Okay, no nevermind. And then finally, when they did have a council, they said, you can't come.
I mean, come on, come on, man.
Sorry. I mean, that's not, there's nothing. There's nothing godly about that. There's nothing godly about.
Yeah, we're going to have a council, basically to condemn you for holding to the doctrine, the scripture. So, okay, so the key question has to be who rightly taught what Paul taught?
And you could come to a couple conclusions. You could come to the conclusion that, well, okay, Rome got it right, or the east got it right, or it's big enough that Rome and the east got it right, or it's big enough that everybody got part of it right. The problem at that point is that they are all condemning each other. The Lutherans, the orthodox, the Catholics, they're all condemning what the other person says. So they don't think that it's big enough for the other ones to get it right. So, so there's this move for people to say, well, we think Luther was right about the gospel, but wrong about authority. And so we're going to put under ourselves, under the authority. The problem is that authority of the pope and of the orthodox, too. This is kind of a quiet thing, but it's also that authority is the one that said that Luther's teaching of the gospel is wrong and condemned, anathematized. So then what do you do? I mean, it was precisely the pope who set up the situation that said, either you're with us and not with the gospel, or if you were with the gospel, you're not with us. And the Lutheran said that choice is pretty easy. Now, the pope today does not say that. He said, I mean, I think the pope wouldn't care if you believed in justification by grace through faith.
And as long, now it's like, well, believe whatever you want, as long as you're under our authority. Because theological despair has entered into the papacy like it has into all these other confessions. There's no thought that there actually is a revealed doctrine that people can know.
So they're like, well, we don't care about Orthodox anymore. We just solely care about authority. And that formal principle is our material principle. It is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that you have to be Catholic. This kind of strange, circular, self referential understanding of authority that has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins.
So you're not put in that awkward situation, but if you just go back a couple of centuries, you can find it. So what? So, you know, what are they to do? I don't think the Lutherans, they certainly didn't like the situation that they were in. But if the pope says, either you stop preaching this doctrine of the Bible or you get excommunicated, that's not a hard decision. Take. They are life goods, fame, child and wife. Let these all be gone nothing won the kingdom remains ours.
[00:28:45] Speaker B: So I wanted to add, because I was thinking, as you were saying, all of that, that every time we have a video like this where we critique someone else's theology, we get at least one or more comments saying, uh, you know, don't be mean. Like, don't critique other groups. Uh, but the thing is, like, I read pretty widely. I read Roman Catholics, I read reform guys. Um, I have friends outside of Lutheranism, like, and I would sit down and have these same conversations with them if we were in person. Like, for us to critique a doctrine that we think is incorrect or false or even flat out heretical, like, does not mean that we're attacking every individual who is within those church bodies or that we have some kind of vendetta against these churches or people. But we want to be clear on what we believe is true. And that often involves critiquing others beliefs. And we're not. I don't think it's done. Like, I've seen some comments where people just think it's mean, and I don't think it's ever done here in a mean spirited way. And I'd be willing to say all of these things to any of, you know, any of my own catholic friends in person over a beer or whatever. So I wanted to add that at the end here, just because I see that in our comments a lot, and I'm always kind of shocked by it. Like, if. And I would expect, like, a Baptist critiquing Lutherans to do the same thing, right? To say, hey, I think they're wrong on these things and list it out. That's fine. That's how I'd rather sit down with someone who believes the Bible is the word of God and argue over these things than even try to have a discussion with someone who's already rejected the word of God and just doesn't care. Like, at least we can argue over what does the. What does this mean? What is the text saying? Rather than pretending we don't have differences and we should be able to do that, we should be able to do it here in this question answer format and talk about other theologies and do it in a way, of course, that's respectful, but also that makes it clear that where we think others are wrong.
[00:30:36] Speaker A: Yeah, no, this is so. I mentioned it before, this idea of theological despair.
And so this has to do with what you're talking about, because it's so. And I don't know if it's so. It could be the result of just kind of thinking about history or not thinking theologically or thinking, but the result, I think there's an idea in most people's heads. It got there. I think it gets to us in different ways. But there's an idea in most people's heads that every theological conclusion is an opinion, and it assumes the lack of clarity of the scripture. That's the kind of basic assumption, is that theology cannot be built on the clear word of God. We don't have enough information to come to solid theological conclusions. And therefore, if someone has a theological, solid theological conclusion, then that just must be their own opinion. And when someone asserts that theological conclusion against someone else's theological conclusion, then they're putting their opinion above other people's opinions, which puts them above other people. And so in most people's minds, an assertion of theological clarity seems like an act of pride. It's okay if you just say that you're right, but as soon as you start to say that someone else is wrong, now there's an act of theological pride. Okay.
I want to say that that is a manifestation of theological despair, and it's the idea that God's truth cannot be known.
And while most people would not say that, I think it's floating around. So let's just kind of label it and see if it's true that when people are upset about the theological debates, this is where that comes from, a theological despair. This is also why it's hard for people to practice closed communion, because the idea that we would have a unified theological confession, most people think, is impossible. If you ask someone who practices open community, lutheran practice, open community, just ask them that, say, is theological unity possible? And they'd say, no. They've despaired of theological clarity and theological unity. So when we are sitting here and saying that here's what the scriptures say and someone else is wrong, it seems like divisive, prideful, and arrogant.
But I want to say that if it's okay, I'm going to try to, as gently as possible, suggest this. If it seems that way to you, I would invite you to explore your own heart and conscience for the existence of theological despair and for the existence of the thought that I can't know what the Bible says in this life until I get to the next life, because that is not because the Lord wants us to have more hope, and he wants. He. In fact, I would say he requires us to hope and to pray for the. For theological unity in the church and not a minimalistic sort of. Well, at least we just all agree that Jesus is Lord, even if we can't agree on anything else. No. Jesus prays to the Father that they may be one, as you and I are one. And that what I'd like to suggest, although this is hard to see, I would like to suggest that Pastor Packer, you and I sitting here and making assertions and arguing against false assertions is, in fact, an act of hope against the darkness of theological despair, the same as practicing close communion is an act of hope that the Lord will establish his church in one doctrine, and that while it feels funny that we're still the only people playing the idea, playing the. It's like you're sitting on a football field and you're trying to play football, and everybody else is like, picking daisies and, I don't know, doing yoga or something, and you go and tackle people and they're like, what the heck are you doing, man? Don't tackle me. I'm here. I'm looking at the clovers, or I'm planting a gardener who knows what I'm doing? But we're like the only people that are still playing the game of theological unity. We're still the only one battling this out. And so it seems very mean and aggressive, but I just. I want to say that it's. It's a. It's a lively act of hope, and I want to invite people who. Who haven't thought that way to think that way. Uh, we.
We ought not to despair that God, through the word and through the spirit, is bringing his church into a single confession. And it might not happen before the resurrection, but he has not authorized us to stop trying, to stop fighting against false doctrine outside the church and inside the church, to stop beingware of false prophets, to stop teaching the truth and correcting those who are wrong and rebuking those who go astray.
We cannot give up. We cannot lose our hope that the father heard the prayer of Jesus, that the church would be won.
That's an excursion on that, but I think that's an important thing for us to think through.
[00:35:56] Speaker B: No, I think it's an excellent point, because I think you see it all the time. Like I said, every time we have any video that critiques anything, we get several comments with people saying, like, don't say that. That's. That's mean. And I think that the despair then makes it just like you said, it makes they think we're just going to war. To go to war to be mean. We're just not being nice. Which is the only virtue that counts for christians, right, is these days, is you have to be nice, which just means don't say anything that would upset anyone else. Whereas, as you said, what you're really trying to do is give them hope. So I think it's a great note to end on today. Yeah.
[00:36:28] Speaker A: Well, thanks, Pastor Packer, and thanks, every, all the you YouTube theologians, for being out there. If there's. If you have more questions. Wolfmeal co slash comment, no Wolfmeal co slash contact. That's the way to do it. Or put it down below with all your rumors you've heard about Pastor Packer, we'll see you next time.
