Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Accusations of schismatism

Bishop Heikka of Diocese of Espoo has given his pastors the same recommendation Huovinen already did: that the children baptized by Mission Province -pastors should not be admitted membership in the congregation - even if parents are and remain members.

Heikka writes in his blog (http://www.pod.fi/heikka/?p=64 - for those of you who can read Finnish):

"Luther-foundation [the confessional Lutheran organization in Finalnd] is schismatic. It accurately follows Lutheran Confessions, but it does not follow church's order. Luther-foundation doesn't apply the episcopate's resolution on the ordination of women nor does it follow the church's order when babtizing children. [...] Baptism is true, when it has been done using water in the name of Triune God, and it has been performed in a church. Last prerequisite is not fulfilled in Luther-foundation's baptisms."

Following this, Heikka goes on to explain that he has informed his pastors not to accept into church's membership children baptized in this fashion.

Before going further into accusations about schismatism, it should be noted that

1. The Bishops themselves do not "follow Church's order", since Church-Law from 1986 explicitly states that even those opposing women's ordination should be allowed ordination into Pastoral Office and serving in the church. This has been neglected, and the ordinations conducted in Mission Province are a direct result of Bishoprics stance making it practically impossible for those to be ordained into ministry who do not accept women's ordination and act accordingly.

Through their actions, bishops have broken against their own legislation. And even worse, they neglect the §1 of the Church Order, which declares the Bible and Lutheran Confessions to be the confession and authority of the church. Among the episcopate there has been and is theologians who openly deny parts of this confession. By doing so, they are violating the very basis of the whole Church Order.

2. During "the days of old" Finland was still a part of the Swedish Empire, and the religious tolerance was minimal. Secular legislation demanded everyone to confess Lutheran Faith. However, due to commercial and diplomatic reasons, some Roman Catholics and Reformed resided in the realm and they were allowed to retain their religion. When, for example, a Scottish officer serving in Crown's military had a child, what were they to do? Nearest Reformed church would be in Netherlands. The clergy of the State Church were instructed that in these cases they could baptize, even though it was plain obvious that the not the baby nor his/her parents would actually join the Lutheran State Church.

Is this just an oddity from the history? Maybe. But is shows that the old church legislation de facto rejects "the third prerequisite" for valid baptism our bishops are now trying to impose - that the baptism must join a person into a visible, concrete and (parochial) congregation.


These notes made, it is appropriate to say a word about the schism-rhetoric used by Heikka and his bunch, "The Boys in Purple", as I like to call them.

Heikka probably doesn't realize it, but by invoking these demands of obedience he declares himself and the whole Lutheranism schismatic. Let's face the truth: Luther and the whole reformation was "illegal" in the sense of the canonic law. They defied the authority of the established ecclesiastical organisation and its head, the Pope. Translated to the language used by our bishops: Luther was a schismatic pastor because he did not utter the word 'revoco' when commanded to do so by his superiors in the church hierarchy.

Only justification to the whole excistence of Lutheran Church rests on the notion that "we must obey God rather than men" - that in the cases where authorities act against God's Word it is our duty to disobey. This, in Heikka's terms, is pure schismatism, plain and obvious.

By doing this, Heikka has indeed declared himself a bishop of inherently schismatic church. He is not a mere schismatic himself, but he is in fact leader of a still on-going schism, and therefore even worse than us block-heads in Luther-foundation.

Last summer in North European Luther Academy's gathering in Finland, Dr. Kaarlo Arffman (a professor of historical theology in Helsinki Uni.) expressed with bold clarity the state which is becoming obvious: the way problems are handled in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is precisely same as the way problems were handled in the Roman Catholic Church in the time of Reformation. Instead of theological discussion, only ecclesiastical authority - and even "secular sword"! - is used.

Arffman concluded his presentation with a question Heikka and his fellows can not answer nor understand. Arffman asked: if the church acts in this fashion, how does it justify its existence apart from Roman Catholicism anymore? If the church law of 21st century must be obeyed without questions, even when it is in contradiction to the Word of God - why won't we apply this same logic to the church law of the 16th century?

It would seem that among all the novelties of our time, a one old doctrine is now being smuggled into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. That is - of course - papacy. Instead of one religious dictator, we have a religious oligarchy - or junta! - of bishops.

I cannot but think of Christ's warning in Matthew 12: 43-45. But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and finds it not. Then he says, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he finds it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goes he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.

We got rid of papacy in 16th century. House was swept and garnished. When it gradually became empty - theologically - it was open for papacy to return. Not in the form of one despot, but many.

1 comment:

Bror Erickson said...

Very insightful Esko. Keep giving the boys in purple a run for their money. But yes asking Lutherans to compromise on doctrine because of some legal technicality is fairly humorous, if it wasn't so serious. Sadly to many Lutherans today never think to ask what does the Bible say? Much more concerned with by laws, and handbooks.