Introduction
I have been interested in the topic of the "firewall" or alternatively the topic of "red lines" for some time now. Both topics are somehow related.
I had mentioned this in the previous worship rehearsal, and a ten-minute discussion immediately ensued between two participants in our worship group without me having said anything else about it.
This means that the topic somehow moves people and is therefore not the worst sermon topic.
You hear "firewall" a lot in the political media at the moment. The aim is to distance themselves from the AfD, as you have no doubt read and heard in the media.
A firewall is, literally speaking, a wall that is particularly fire-resistant and thus prevents the spread of fire. There are so-called fire resistance classes for walls and also for doors. At least when we were building at the time, the rule was that the walls between two separate residential units had to have fire resistance class F90, i.e. they had to withstand a fire for 90 minutes.
"Firewalls" also exist in IT, where they are called "firewalls" and are intended to prevent malware from either getting onto the computer or any existing malware from getting out of the computer.
But that's just a side note...
There is a lot of talk about this in politics at the moment. For example, many are demanding that the CDU maintain a firewall against the AfD. Many fear that right-wing extremist ideas will become socially acceptable if they work together with the AfD. I can understand that and I also reject the AfD, I had a look at their programme a long time ago and I don't think much of it. But it's not important what I think politically, I just want to introduce this term.
"Red lines" are something similar to a "firewall". Where is the boundary for me?
Example Luther
We find an interesting example of this in church history: Martin Luther. The Wikipedia article on Luther (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther) describes that he had total problems with the confession of sins and the sale of indulgences at the time. According to the doctrine of the time, in confession one had to show true, comprehensive repentance and, after confessing one's sins, make satisfaction or reparation, which was partly done by buying letters of indulgence.
Luther could not come to terms with this. He was of the opinion that no human being can feel such a comprehensive repentance, but that the sinful person should only turn to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
He also denied satisfaction or restitution, because he believed that justification can only come from grace.
While reflecting on Romans 1:17; LUT, he realised this:
This Bible verse led him to his new understanding of Scripture: God's eternal righteousness is a pure gift of grace that is only given to man through faith in Jesus Christ. No personal effort can force this gift. Even faith, the acceptance of the grace bestowed, is not a humanly possible work
By grace alone was Luther's firewall, so to speak, behind which he could no longer retreat. He was then condemned, but protected by some princes, and so the Protestant Church was born.
In the early days, this discussion was conducted in Latin in academic circles. The indulgence debate in particular was initially only understood by the specialist audience. Luther then wrote the "Sermon on Indulgences and Grace" in German, making Luther's insights accessible to non-scholars.
How does such a discussion seem today? The churches are generally under pressure. Wouldn't it be better to stick together than to argue?
The Reformation was not the only church split. The best known was the separation between the Orthodox and Catholics in 1054.
The first Baptist congregation in England was also founded by Thomas Helwys, who had turned his back on the Anglican Church. This had to do with the Anglican Church's doctrine of baptism, for example.
Do such discussions about teaching still make sense today?
What about doctrinal demarcations or firewalls such as those formulated by Luther? "Here I stand, I can do no other." is the saying that is attributed to Luther as his closing words at the Diet of Worm. There is no consensus among scholars as to whether he really said this; he probably didn't act as offensively as he is often portrayed, but he really couldn't help it.
For the average citizen who is far removed from the church, such discussions may sound more like the Latin of Luther's time.
But for my faith and, I would argue, also for our faith here in the congregation, Luther's realisation of righteousness by faith is very central. We can't go back on that. That is a red line for me in terms of content.
The red line in the Bible
We also find some striking statements in this direction in the Bible, e.g. Jesus Christ says in Luke 11, 23; NL
In Luther's translation it reads like this:
Jesus clearly calls for a decision here. There is no such thing as neutral.
Something similar is said about Jesus Christ in Acts 4, 12; NL:
From a purely doctrinal point of view, this should be our red line, our firewall. Salvation is only in Jesus Christ, without Jesus Christ our Christianity, our church, makes no sense.
Red lines in Christian practice
So what does all this have to do with the practical Christian life?
Some people may flinch when I put it in such harsh terms and fear that I am now making some kind of statement of demarcation towards others.
I would like to look at a passage from Mark 9, 38-41; NL:
This text seems to contradict a little of what I said earlier. So it's obviously not about judging other Christians.
The disciples complain: "He doesn't belong to us, he's not Baptist certified, he's certainly not doing everything right."
We do not have to judge or evaluate the faith of others. I think that is clear from the text here.
We may be on the way with Jesus, but we still remain learners. This attitude is beautifully described in Acts 17:11; New Testament:
This translation "biased" is interesting. We must never lose this perspective of the learner, no matter how old we are. In particular, we must always bear in mind that the other person could also be right.
It does not say how the Thessalonians behaved at the time. Perhaps they were sceptical towards Paul. "Don't tell me anything, I already know all that" or something similar.
This now seems to contradict the statements about firewalls and red lines from earlier, but it is somehow connected.
Luther was part of the church and, as a monk, was actually obliged to uphold this teaching, which he recognised as false. And he had to take a stand and draw the consequences.
Nowadays, it feels like we are being asked to take more and more positions. For example, are we against right-wing extremism, are we in favour of the energy transition? Of course (well, I am). What do we think about the war in Ukraine? What do we think about vaccination? etc. And the increasing polarisation can make it more and more difficult to express your opinion, depending on where you stand. Personally, I find a lot of things obvious, but so do others.
But let's leave the political issues aside.
Salvation is only in Jesus Christ. And we are only justified before God through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. That is our firewall, our red line, beyond which we cannot go back, just as Luther could not.
According to tradition, Luther appeared rather cautious, trembling and hesitant, i.e. the young Luther. As Luther grew older, he became a little more outspoken, but that's another topic.
And this kind of behaviour also corresponds roughly to how the Christians in Berea were: Learning and not prejudiced.
So let us consistently hold on to Jesus Christ, to the forgiveness of sins, to righteousness by faith and let us remain humble learners on the path, also humble towards others.
Summary
Let me summarise:
- Today we thought about firewalls and red lines.
- Luther was part of the church and could no longer support what he recognised as false doctrine. He simply could not do otherwise.
- Jesus as the only way, righteousness and life through forgiveness of sins is non-negotiable for a Christian according to the Bible.
- We don't have to judge others, we are on our way, hopefully not prejudiced, but as humble learners.