Document Actions
Why I'm a Confessional Lutheran
by
Clint Schnekloth
—
March 18, 2010
I'm probably not a confessional Lutheran in the strong sense of the term. Some folks who are "confessional" are adamant about it, fastidious in their attention to being confessional. It is a mark of pride, a crypto-fundamentalism. I don't consider myself a confessional Lutheran of that stripe. I think I tend towards more a "big-tent" confessionalism. How to define this...
I'm probably not a confessional Lutheran in the strong sense of the term. Some folks who are "confessional" are adamant about it, fastidious in their attention to being confessional. It is a mark of pride, a crypto-fundamentalism. I don't consider myself a confessional Lutheran of that stripe.
I think I tend towards more a "big-tent" confessionalism. How to define this... Well, let's just say that in any given conversation that is ecumenical or multi-faith in some way, I let my church's confession take precedence in what I say, preach, or teach, over my own personal opinions or reflections. I hope that my own thinking is coming into greater and greater alignment with the confessions of the church.
If I fail to preach or teach in a way that is congruent with the confessions, I would strive to admit that I have failed to understand them, have forgotten them, but would like to understand them better.
I take a similar approach to Scripture. Since I consider the confessions of the Lutheran church to be a solid interpretation of Scripture, I value them highly, but I place Scripture even higher. I don't just want to read Scripture. I hope to be read by Scripture. I hope Scripture will shape how I preach and teach and believe to such a degree that my own faith will be submerged in the waters of the canon of Scripture.
But by "big tent," I mean that I offer that position with a certain humility in the wider ecumenical conversation. I don't try to disguise that I'm Lutheran in my presuppositions. But I let it be a voice in the conversation, and I assume I can learn more about my own confession by listening well and diligently to others of a different persuasion.
It is also "big tent" in the sense that I believe that the authors of the confessions were striving, in their confessional writings, to be in continuity not just with Scripture, but with the tradition of the church, especially the Church Father's and the ecumenical creeds and councils, what is sometimes called the regula fidei or the analogia fidei.
However, it is not "big tent" in the sense that I claim not to have a confession. I have trouble imagining being a pastor in a non-denominational or non-confessional tradition. I can't honestly say that I'm "just a Christian," or I just believe what the Bible says, full stop. I find this position disingenuous, even if people don't intend to be disingenuous when they say it, because it fails to admit the various hermeneutical lenses that people employ when they read the Scripture or confess faith. In this way, being "confessional" is much like being self-aware about your hermeneutic or what Gadamer called our "horizon of interpretation."
And when we are unable or unwilling to identify our horizon of interpretation/confession, it's impossible, ultimately, to achieve a Horizontverschmelzung.
So in the end, I happen to believe that being confessional is a much more open position for dialogue, mission, ecumenism, than supposedly non-confessional forms of belief. It is so precisely because it knows better how to dialogue, because it has identified presuppositions and concepts, even has a confessional text to refer to. And it has a kind of humility, because it tries to be part of a larger tradition, and subject to it, rather than individual and free-floating.
So that, at least in part, is why I'm a confessional Lutheran.
Clint Schnekloth is Pastor at East Koshkonong Lutheran Church in Cambridge, Wisconsin.
Thank you, I want more please
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
March 19, 2010 07:47
First I’d like to say thank you for writing this, I found it encouraging and inspirational.
I want more though. I’ve been looking for ideas and brief summaries of this type for the purpose of helping me to lay out a format of my own to guide me when I share my own testimony with my Christian friends my reasons for submitting myself to confessional authority. Having come from non-confessional Christianity for many years, I have many friends and acquaintances who don’t consider themselves confessional Christians, in fact might not even know what it is, being mostly independent Bible believers, non-denominational Christians, Pentecostals etc.,. So I always try to find inspirational methods for sharing my better understanding now in a way that they will understand.
Although I understand what you are saying when you say, “I hope that my own thinking is coming into greater and greater alignment with the confessions of the church. If I fail to preach or teach in a way that is congruent with the confessions, I would strive to admit that I have failed to understand them, have forgotten them, but would like to understand them better.” But you’ve jumped so quickly to the end, to the, what to do once we are already confessional, phrase. I want more of the “Why” to help me explain why a person should choose to be confessional in the first place. You’re preaching to the choir here already I suppose and you’re explaining what we should do as confessional Christians and this is helpful and I thank you for it, but I want ideas to explain why we are confessional Lutherans in the first place.
In the end, you say, “I happen to believe that being confessional is a much more open position for dialogue, mission, ecumenism, than supposedly non-confessional forms of belief ... because it tries to be part of a larger tradition, and subject to it, rather than individual and free-floating.” And I entirely agree, and this helps a bit, but how can we explain why this is a more mature Christianity to those that aren’t already confessional? Anyone have any ideas?
Again though, thanks for sharing this work, I am blessed for having been able to read and be encouraged by it.
I want more though. I’ve been looking for ideas and brief summaries of this type for the purpose of helping me to lay out a format of my own to guide me when I share my own testimony with my Christian friends my reasons for submitting myself to confessional authority. Having come from non-confessional Christianity for many years, I have many friends and acquaintances who don’t consider themselves confessional Christians, in fact might not even know what it is, being mostly independent Bible believers, non-denominational Christians, Pentecostals etc.,. So I always try to find inspirational methods for sharing my better understanding now in a way that they will understand.
Although I understand what you are saying when you say, “I hope that my own thinking is coming into greater and greater alignment with the confessions of the church. If I fail to preach or teach in a way that is congruent with the confessions, I would strive to admit that I have failed to understand them, have forgotten them, but would like to understand them better.” But you’ve jumped so quickly to the end, to the, what to do once we are already confessional, phrase. I want more of the “Why” to help me explain why a person should choose to be confessional in the first place. You’re preaching to the choir here already I suppose and you’re explaining what we should do as confessional Christians and this is helpful and I thank you for it, but I want ideas to explain why we are confessional Lutherans in the first place.
In the end, you say, “I happen to believe that being confessional is a much more open position for dialogue, mission, ecumenism, than supposedly non-confessional forms of belief ... because it tries to be part of a larger tradition, and subject to it, rather than individual and free-floating.” And I entirely agree, and this helps a bit, but how can we explain why this is a more mature Christianity to those that aren’t already confessional? Anyone have any ideas?
Again though, thanks for sharing this work, I am blessed for having been able to read and be encouraged by it.
why confessional?
Posted by
Clint Schnekloth
at
March 19, 2010 13:51
James, it sounds like you might be well on your way to writing the very response you are looking for. I'm glad what I've written so far is helpful to you and has inspired you to continue reflection.
I will take a stab at writing more on your question, but I might add that the audience I had in mind when writing my post were Christians other than confessional Christians, and maybe especially classmates I have when I take classes at Fuller Theological Seminary. They often ask or wonder why I'm confessional. I had them in the back of my mind. I also had in mind fellow Lutherans who aren't convinced it is necessary to be confessional anymore.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response.
I will take a stab at writing more on your question, but I might add that the audience I had in mind when writing my post were Christians other than confessional Christians, and maybe especially classmates I have when I take classes at Fuller Theological Seminary. They often ask or wonder why I'm confessional. I had them in the back of my mind. I also had in mind fellow Lutherans who aren't convinced it is necessary to be confessional anymore.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response.
What Confessions?
Posted by
Padre Dave Poedel, STS
at
March 19, 2010 16:33
I am intrigued by the thread above, because I am delighted to hear that folks in the Evangelical megamonolith are not necessarily so, and they realize that we have Confessions that we occasionally take seriously.
My most recent challenge is to dialog with fellow Lutheran clergy (OK, of the non-LCMS type) that I am friends and colleagues with that our Lutheran Confessions actually have relevance in our 21st Century American Churches. I get real strange looks when I reference the Confessions in discussions...they often ask if I am trying to get a job as a seminary professor....YIKES!
My most recent challenge is to dialog with fellow Lutheran clergy (OK, of the non-LCMS type) that I am friends and colleagues with that our Lutheran Confessions actually have relevance in our 21st Century American Churches. I get real strange looks when I reference the Confessions in discussions...they often ask if I am trying to get a job as a seminary professor....YIKES!
Explaining mature Christianity
Posted by
Kurt
at
March 19, 2010 22:07
I guess the problem in trying to explain it is that there seems to be a contradiction between repetitively stating a confessional position and being able to think for oneself. I guess that dichotomy needs to be overcome.
Thinking for one's self
Posted by
Pastor Phil Spomer
at
March 21, 2010 07:20
Dearest Kurt,
” I guess the problem in trying to explain it is that there seems to be a contradiction between repetitively stating a confessional position and being able to think for oneself.”
I’ve thought for myself. Thought for myself with the best of them. I’ve been authentic! Out there in uncharted country, head unbowed against the cosmos!
It’s not what its crack up to be. Sure I’ve thought for myself. But now…
I don’t want to think for myself.
There. I said it. Would have been more socially acceptable to say that I wear women’s underwear. But I mean it; I don’t want to think for myself.
I enjoy thinking for myself. Despite what we say, it’s easy and fun to think for yourself. That’s why teenagers like to do it. But I confess (really, in a non false modesty way) that I am
a) stupid,
b) ignorant, and especially
c) evil.
Oh, yes, I could mitigate those. I’m not always stupid. I have learned a few things. I do now and then have a charitable impulse. No, wait, scratch that last one; sure, I have charitable thoughts, but at bottom, they’re motivated by the pride I take in having them.
So, when I think for myself (which is really a prideful thing to want to do) I wander off the cliff like a guy who refuses to read the map or ask directions.
Now before I shut up I have to point out that I dare not let other human beings do my thinking either. All of them have the three failings that I have. So what to do? You’re ahead of me, I’m sure. I endeavor to let Jesus do my thinking.
That’s what the Book of Concord is. To miss quote Wittgenstein, “The Confessions are an unusually stubborn attempt to think Biblically.”
One may regard me as a contemptible member of the hoi polloi, but one would ultimately be doing so as one goes of the cliff.
” I guess the problem in trying to explain it is that there seems to be a contradiction between repetitively stating a confessional position and being able to think for oneself.”
I’ve thought for myself. Thought for myself with the best of them. I’ve been authentic! Out there in uncharted country, head unbowed against the cosmos!
It’s not what its crack up to be. Sure I’ve thought for myself. But now…
I don’t want to think for myself.
There. I said it. Would have been more socially acceptable to say that I wear women’s underwear. But I mean it; I don’t want to think for myself.
I enjoy thinking for myself. Despite what we say, it’s easy and fun to think for yourself. That’s why teenagers like to do it. But I confess (really, in a non false modesty way) that I am
a) stupid,
b) ignorant, and especially
c) evil.
Oh, yes, I could mitigate those. I’m not always stupid. I have learned a few things. I do now and then have a charitable impulse. No, wait, scratch that last one; sure, I have charitable thoughts, but at bottom, they’re motivated by the pride I take in having them.
So, when I think for myself (which is really a prideful thing to want to do) I wander off the cliff like a guy who refuses to read the map or ask directions.
Now before I shut up I have to point out that I dare not let other human beings do my thinking either. All of them have the three failings that I have. So what to do? You’re ahead of me, I’m sure. I endeavor to let Jesus do my thinking.
That’s what the Book of Concord is. To miss quote Wittgenstein, “The Confessions are an unusually stubborn attempt to think Biblically.”
One may regard me as a contemptible member of the hoi polloi, but one would ultimately be doing so as one goes of the cliff.
except that you can't escape thinking for yourself
Posted by
Peter
at
March 21, 2010 19:14
It might be nice if we could get away with not thinking for ourselves. Problem is that we can't. Even among those who think the BoC is vitally important to a proper understanding of Christianity, there isn't consensus on exactly what it means, let alone Scripture itself. Which understanding do we blindly trust?
I think the BoC reflects an awful lot of thought by men put into that very question, and to me, that's the power of the Confessions. The Confessions articulate a hermeneutic for fully understanding the life-giving suffering and death of Christ as explained within Scripture, and show how that hermeneutic applies to issues the Reformers faced in their day. For all that we face a number of the same issues they faced, we do face new issues, and need to think about how that hermeneutic applies to the issues of today.
I think the BoC reflects an awful lot of thought by men put into that very question, and to me, that's the power of the Confessions. The Confessions articulate a hermeneutic for fully understanding the life-giving suffering and death of Christ as explained within Scripture, and show how that hermeneutic applies to issues the Reformers faced in their day. For all that we face a number of the same issues they faced, we do face new issues, and need to think about how that hermeneutic applies to the issues of today.
Confessional IS for the Thinking Person
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
March 23, 2010 10:27
How is a person confessional Lutheran, how is a person confessional orthodox? Is it mindlessness? No. One must choose to be Lutheran and Confessional every single day, or else one doesn’t really know what one believes. Perhaps a person could be born into a confessional understanding environment, blessed by providence, but until they decide for themselves to confess willingly and knowingly then they are infants in Christ, living on the milk and not yet ready for the meat of Christianity, a perfectly satisfactory condition for many, held in the arms of Christ. But for maturity in Christ an individual decides for themselves and is convinced, through thoughtful and thorough study of the scripture and the confessions, that the confessional understanding is the proper and correct exegesis of scripture and the gospel. One chooses be confessional Lutheran, or one chooses to not be. Being confessional is not a mindless repetition of irrelevant minutia, and for anyone to suggest that repetition of memorized data is to be confessional shows an utter lack of understanding of what the confessions say and proclaim.
Confessional Lutherans recognize the two ends of Christendom: Protestantism and Catholicism. Confessional Lutherans are those who choose to stand in the middle, vowing support for either end and sharing the strengths of both, yet avoiding the errors of either. This is not done by mindless obedience, but thoughtful adherence and study and testing the paths against the directions of scripture. All road do not lead to Rome, they are not all equal choices.
Confessional Lutherans decide to be both Evangelical (Christ centered) AND confess with the Catholics the ecumenical Creeds, understanding that the proper Christian theology is faith in the universality of the Law and Gospel through the ages and that Christ’s promises are for all time, not restricted to specific time periods. One does not accidentally follow the confessions, or though ignorance or lack of independent thinking come to such conclusions. Clearly the default human mode is superstition and prejudice, ignorance and depravity, self magnification and prideful. The mature Christian of today comes to the realization that we are not the pathfinders, we are not in undiscovered territories, we are not sailing in uncharted waters of Christianity. Only the prideful and unthinking fool decides that he will not use the charts of the people who came before him and instead decides to trust in his own abilities to safeguard his passage through dangerous waters. Sailing into coral reefs and needlessly beaching his ship on clearly marked shallow waters, unnecessarily faltering, avoidable if only he would use the charts that are already made to avoid such perils. The scripture and the confessions are the charts and the instructions to help us reach our destination, and we still have the same destination in mind. We share with our ancestors the goad of reaching a better understanding with Christ, we do not have different goals and different objectives, the Holy Spirit still leads us to the same goal. Modern man has no new problems to face, no new dangers that have not already been warned about by those that came before us. Jesus said the path was straight and narrow, and it still is.
Confessional Lutherans recognize the two ends of Christendom: Protestantism and Catholicism. Confessional Lutherans are those who choose to stand in the middle, vowing support for either end and sharing the strengths of both, yet avoiding the errors of either. This is not done by mindless obedience, but thoughtful adherence and study and testing the paths against the directions of scripture. All road do not lead to Rome, they are not all equal choices.
Confessional Lutherans decide to be both Evangelical (Christ centered) AND confess with the Catholics the ecumenical Creeds, understanding that the proper Christian theology is faith in the universality of the Law and Gospel through the ages and that Christ’s promises are for all time, not restricted to specific time periods. One does not accidentally follow the confessions, or though ignorance or lack of independent thinking come to such conclusions. Clearly the default human mode is superstition and prejudice, ignorance and depravity, self magnification and prideful. The mature Christian of today comes to the realization that we are not the pathfinders, we are not in undiscovered territories, we are not sailing in uncharted waters of Christianity. Only the prideful and unthinking fool decides that he will not use the charts of the people who came before him and instead decides to trust in his own abilities to safeguard his passage through dangerous waters. Sailing into coral reefs and needlessly beaching his ship on clearly marked shallow waters, unnecessarily faltering, avoidable if only he would use the charts that are already made to avoid such perils. The scripture and the confessions are the charts and the instructions to help us reach our destination, and we still have the same destination in mind. We share with our ancestors the goad of reaching a better understanding with Christ, we do not have different goals and different objectives, the Holy Spirit still leads us to the same goal. Modern man has no new problems to face, no new dangers that have not already been warned about by those that came before us. Jesus said the path was straight and narrow, and it still is.
genetics?
Posted by
Peter
at
March 23, 2010 17:22
Apparently the ELCA commissioned a social statement on genetics back in 2005 that is ready for arguing about now. I think it does have a point when it says that we DO have new problems to deal with now: rapid communication via the internet/etc, cloning, stem cell research, automobiles, global climate change, weapons of mass destruction. How sin twists each of these things has largely been undiscussed in the church.
I'm also not as sure about your 'infant' vs 'mature' Christianity. The Confessions are a wonderful tool, but they're still a means to the End, which is the proclamation of the Gospel in such a way as to successfully communicate it.
I'm also not as sure about your 'infant' vs 'mature' Christianity. The Confessions are a wonderful tool, but they're still a means to the End, which is the proclamation of the Gospel in such a way as to successfully communicate it.
God knew about Genetics before we did, nothing new here for him
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
March 23, 2010 18:40
Rapids communication via the internet, how does this need special guidance outside of what is already provided in scripture for good old fashion face to face speaking and speeches in the public forum? It does not. All of the rules for speaking face to face applies to internet communication as well, no new rules are required here.
Cloning and genetics and all medical advancements and research, increasing our understanding the human body does not change how we are expected to treat our bodies and the bodies of others. The rules of the ten commandments and the rules Christ established have not ended or stop at the door of medical schools just because we’ve expanded our understanding of human anatomy to the molecular level. Nothing new here since the medical professional has always existed and people will continue to go to them for treatment, as they should. How we treat them and ourselves is what is important, how we treat our illnesses is more important though and there is nothing new here, that isn’t already covered by scripture.
Automobiles, how is this a new issue in any relevant way? Dissimilar to chariots and horses and wagons only be the speed with which they travel, no different than good old fashioned walking, at least not in any meaningful way. Nothing new here.
Global Climate change is a new salvation issue how? Even Noah had such problems, Christ said everyday people can see when storm clouds coming, Elijah and Jacob had multiyear droughts to deal with, changing weather patterns are not an issue that is absent from existing scripture. There is nothing new here.
Weapons of mass destruction, why would the rules for our normal behaviors and expectations in warfare be different now than in Christ’s day? If it was wrong for the Romans to plow under the temple, or salt the fields during the Bar Kokhba revolt, it is wrong today. How are weapons worse today than what the Romans did? "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils", and for seventeen years the Romans did not allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar. Did the mustard gases of WW1 outlast the war? Did Nagasaki get rebuilt faster or slower than Carthage did after the final Punic war? Are the horrors of entire cities being reduced to ruble worse today than in was two or three thousand years ago? I think not, to say or think otherwise is to pretend that our mothers are more human than the mothers of their day… self-aggrandizement at its worse.
No, you are mistaken, moral and righteous behaviors remain moral and righteous today, and immoral and sinful behaviors remain sinful and damaging today, technology only speeds things up, ethical behaviors and salvation remain as they always have been. Everything else is vanity and chasing after the wind. But we can all remember what our forefathers thought of as well, “If I knew the world was to end tomorrow, I would still plant an apple tree today.” We are the same as our forefathers, no different.
Cloning and genetics and all medical advancements and research, increasing our understanding the human body does not change how we are expected to treat our bodies and the bodies of others. The rules of the ten commandments and the rules Christ established have not ended or stop at the door of medical schools just because we’ve expanded our understanding of human anatomy to the molecular level. Nothing new here since the medical professional has always existed and people will continue to go to them for treatment, as they should. How we treat them and ourselves is what is important, how we treat our illnesses is more important though and there is nothing new here, that isn’t already covered by scripture.
Automobiles, how is this a new issue in any relevant way? Dissimilar to chariots and horses and wagons only be the speed with which they travel, no different than good old fashioned walking, at least not in any meaningful way. Nothing new here.
Global Climate change is a new salvation issue how? Even Noah had such problems, Christ said everyday people can see when storm clouds coming, Elijah and Jacob had multiyear droughts to deal with, changing weather patterns are not an issue that is absent from existing scripture. There is nothing new here.
Weapons of mass destruction, why would the rules for our normal behaviors and expectations in warfare be different now than in Christ’s day? If it was wrong for the Romans to plow under the temple, or salt the fields during the Bar Kokhba revolt, it is wrong today. How are weapons worse today than what the Romans did? "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils", and for seventeen years the Romans did not allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar. Did the mustard gases of WW1 outlast the war? Did Nagasaki get rebuilt faster or slower than Carthage did after the final Punic war? Are the horrors of entire cities being reduced to ruble worse today than in was two or three thousand years ago? I think not, to say or think otherwise is to pretend that our mothers are more human than the mothers of their day… self-aggrandizement at its worse.
No, you are mistaken, moral and righteous behaviors remain moral and righteous today, and immoral and sinful behaviors remain sinful and damaging today, technology only speeds things up, ethical behaviors and salvation remain as they always have been. Everything else is vanity and chasing after the wind. But we can all remember what our forefathers thought of as well, “If I knew the world was to end tomorrow, I would still plant an apple tree today.” We are the same as our forefathers, no different.
not better, but new
Posted by
Peter
at
March 24, 2010 19:02
So, if it's ok to talk to other people you're driving with, is it ok to talk to other people on your cell phone? If internet communications are to be governed the same, is it ok to text while you're driving? Some people were especially taught to control horses with their knees... does that mean we should practice and attempt to drive cars with our knees?
Also, usury used to be a big no-no for Christians. Yet how many of us have bank accounts that bear interest, or invest in the market and how many of our congregations do the same? Is it a sin to invest? Are there any ethical market practices?
God's law of love, and Christ's promise of forgiveness are certainly eternal, but how they play out in our situations, along with sin, is very different from that of Luther's time, Paul's time or Isaiahs' times.
Also, usury used to be a big no-no for Christians. Yet how many of us have bank accounts that bear interest, or invest in the market and how many of our congregations do the same? Is it a sin to invest? Are there any ethical market practices?
God's law of love, and Christ's promise of forgiveness are certainly eternal, but how they play out in our situations, along with sin, is very different from that of Luther's time, Paul's time or Isaiahs' times.
Technology does not make us different
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
March 25, 2010 07:28
Instead of repeating this cycle of example and counter point endlessly for every bit of technology developed over the last hundred years, I'll simply say this, the assertion that states that we need new morality rules and new ethical rules for the activities of our everyday lives, like how to drive a car with our knees or if it is sin to text while driving, is misplaced from the conception. All these issues can be addressed in the same way I countered them previously.
In the end, we are full of ourselves to think that in our relationship with Christ and his expectations for us we are somehow different in any meaningful way than other people. Secondarily, when you said, "but how they play out in our situations, along with sin, is very different from that of Luther's time, Paul's time or Isaiahs' times" I think you are displaying the real issue and difference here. This is the root difference between us.
I do not think that scripture means different things for different people. Should Christian moral behavior be taught differently to the Mongolians who still live in yurts because they live like Isaiah did than it is taught to an urban American teen with a bluetooth attached to his ear? Should the Samoan Christians follow a different ethical standard than a middle aged European small business owner because the former lives in smaller communities like Paul did? Should the rural Brazilians be taught to follow Christianity differently than a soccer mom in Nebraska is taught because they live in a more dominantly catholic culture like Luther lived in than the soccer Mom does? The answer to all of these questions is no, scripture with the exegetical focus on Christ, is timeless and borderless, and the creeds, and the Lutheran Confession are the guide for Christian faith and life throughout the ages. The Lutheran Confessions supply us with the explanation of scripture and it’s application to every individuals daily life, regardless of the technilogical development of their culture. Confessional moral and ethical behavior is no different now than it was for the people that lived before us.
In the end, we are full of ourselves to think that in our relationship with Christ and his expectations for us we are somehow different in any meaningful way than other people. Secondarily, when you said, "but how they play out in our situations, along with sin, is very different from that of Luther's time, Paul's time or Isaiahs' times" I think you are displaying the real issue and difference here. This is the root difference between us.
I do not think that scripture means different things for different people. Should Christian moral behavior be taught differently to the Mongolians who still live in yurts because they live like Isaiah did than it is taught to an urban American teen with a bluetooth attached to his ear? Should the Samoan Christians follow a different ethical standard than a middle aged European small business owner because the former lives in smaller communities like Paul did? Should the rural Brazilians be taught to follow Christianity differently than a soccer mom in Nebraska is taught because they live in a more dominantly catholic culture like Luther lived in than the soccer Mom does? The answer to all of these questions is no, scripture with the exegetical focus on Christ, is timeless and borderless, and the creeds, and the Lutheran Confession are the guide for Christian faith and life throughout the ages. The Lutheran Confessions supply us with the explanation of scripture and it’s application to every individuals daily life, regardless of the technilogical development of their culture. Confessional moral and ethical behavior is no different now than it was for the people that lived before us.
technology makes the situations different
Posted by
Peter
at
March 27, 2010 00:17
This statement: "Confessional moral and ethical behavior is no different now than it was for the people that lived before us" is not true. The question of usury and accepting interest is the clearest one, especially since Walther designated this as the (only?) open question for the LCMS, and left it so on the grounds that some doctrines in Scripture are matters of faith, while others are not, and that this fit into the latter category. It was forbidden, and now is not. Acts 15:20 has not been a law for us since before the Reformation. Polygamy is another one that has changed. 1 Timothy prefers bishops, not laity, to have only 1 wife, and this is written well after Mark 10.
I will agree that if you go far enough up, you reach common ground-- the Law is summed up in love of God and love of neighbor. The Gospel is similarly universal. The Confessions give us a universal hermeneutic-- the Law/Gospel distinction, and examples of how it works. However, we still need to apply all of this.
I will agree that if you go far enough up, you reach common ground-- the Law is summed up in love of God and love of neighbor. The Gospel is similarly universal. The Confessions give us a universal hermeneutic-- the Law/Gospel distinction, and examples of how it works. However, we still need to apply all of this.
why be confessional or even lutheran?
Posted by
fws
at
April 17, 2010 23:12
earthly (aka visible) and true (aka god-pleasing ) righteousness equals mortification of the flesh + love. one or the other and not both are only half-righteousness.
mortification is self-discipline/self-control . Love is any act that makes the lives of others better.
Theologically this means something very mundane: the confessions are useful tools for pastors and other theologians (like this lay one!) to force us to avoid inovation to "be relevant" or to get creative. these confessions are our examples of exactly how to go about not only being orthodox, but also to cling to the "form of sound doctrine" and hand on only what we have received.
This is mortification for theologians.
Secondly we confess. this is not for us, this is for our neighbor. It can rescue him from error and confirm him in faith in the forgiveness of sins, which alone is the lifelong and most difficult art of being a christian.
This is truly love.
the two together are earthly outward righteousness that are the manger holding the Christ Child, the holy Gospel. Here is how pastors can boldly sin in not being perfect pastors, yet be certain that what they do is true righteousness.
At the same time,being at peace in your consciences here as to your earthly righteousness, you will at the same time rest your conscience alone towards your God in the forgiveness of your sins in christ, which alone is where you seek your life personally as pastors and so guide your flock as Christ has placed you to do.
God Bless you Lutheran pastors in your holy vocations!
mortification is self-discipline/self-control . Love is any act that makes the lives of others better.
Theologically this means something very mundane: the confessions are useful tools for pastors and other theologians (like this lay one!) to force us to avoid inovation to "be relevant" or to get creative. these confessions are our examples of exactly how to go about not only being orthodox, but also to cling to the "form of sound doctrine" and hand on only what we have received.
This is mortification for theologians.
Secondly we confess. this is not for us, this is for our neighbor. It can rescue him from error and confirm him in faith in the forgiveness of sins, which alone is the lifelong and most difficult art of being a christian.
This is truly love.
the two together are earthly outward righteousness that are the manger holding the Christ Child, the holy Gospel. Here is how pastors can boldly sin in not being perfect pastors, yet be certain that what they do is true righteousness.
At the same time,being at peace in your consciences here as to your earthly righteousness, you will at the same time rest your conscience alone towards your God in the forgiveness of your sins in christ, which alone is where you seek your life personally as pastors and so guide your flock as Christ has placed you to do.
God Bless you Lutheran pastors in your holy vocations!
Some other folks taking this seriously
Posted by
Chris Enstad
at
March 20, 2010 08:58
I would encourage readers to check out http://www.wittenberginstitute.org/ a seminary in the process of its founding for developing the mind of our future church leaders (clergy and/or lay). They need some strong individual and congregational support to get their founding class off and running in September.
Chris Enstad
Chris Enstad
canon?
Posted by
Daniel
at
July 12, 2010 19:44
I'm just wondering what you meant by the canon of scripture. I think Piepkorn had a valuable observation when he recognized that The Book of Concord makes no list of canonical books. What do you believe is the true canon of Holy Scripture?
Confessional Study Groups
You might invite yourself to the district (LCMS) Confessional Study Group. You might be amazed to discover we no longer sacrifice children to Baal or boil in a pot non-confessional missionaries. You might need an "escort" however, but the password is "Luther is my homeboy". There is no secret handshake.