What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional - ? (An Opinion Poll)
(1) When, in its entirety and without any exceptions, the Book of Concord is acknowledged as the belief, teaching, and confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century - ?
(2) When, like a certain nineteenth century theologian, one excises offensive portions from the confessions and heartily subscribes to whatever is left, as long as the remaining portions still fit the criteria of "agreeing with the Scriptures" - ?
(3) When only those portions of the Book of Concord that have the defense of explicit sedes doctrinae in citation are to be upheld as normative for the belief, teaching, confession, and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today - ?
(4) When the great "we believe, teach, and confess" statements (regardless of an indicated sedes,) together with similar statements such as "our churches believe", etc., are considered the only portions of the Book of Concord which are to be upheld for the Evangelical Lutheran Church to believe, teach, and confess today - ?
(5) When, in addition to the "our churches believe" portions, statements that are qualified with phrases such as "it is the practice of our churches" or "our ministers [do thus and so]", etc., are specifically and particularly the only portions of the Book of Concord which are to be upheld as the belief, teaching, confession, and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today - ?
(6) When one maintains a subscription (of the type suggested in any of the above, or perhaps something else) to the Book of Concord of 1580, understanding that edition as the first and normative edition of the Evangelical Lutheran Symbols and seeing each subsequent edition or translation as a commentary on the authoritative edition of 1580?
(7) When one maintains a subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580 as well as to the Book of Concord of 1584, citing these two as complementary and not differing in any substantial way (with the difference between mehr in the Treatise of 1580 and supra in 1584 not being considered substantial; likewise, the addition of the semper virgo phrase in the 1584 edition of the Smalcald Articles not being considered substantial, perhaps out of deference to FC SD VIII...) and when these two are considered the normative and authoritative editions - ?
(8) When one maintains that his subscription is to the 1580(+1584?) Book of Concord, yet only practices theology solely on the basis of modern translations of that/those text(s), despite modern deviations (eg., gender neutralization,) which have been imposed upon the original texts in order to forward a particular agenda - ?
(9) When one maintains, down to the assertions about garlic juice and magnets, that everything in the Book of Concord (1580 and/or 1584 and/or 1921 and/or 1959, etc.,) is a faithful exposition of the Scriptures and is normative for what we believe, teach, confess, and practice today - ?
(10) When one maintains, beyond the assertions about garlic juice, that everything in the Book of Concord (edition: your choice), including the materials referenced authoritatively by the Lutheran Symbols (such as Luther's Great Confession Concerning the Lord's Supper), is a faithful exposition of the Scriptures and is normative for what we believe, teach, confess, and practice today - ?
(11) When one maintains that, in addition to everything that is written in the Book of Concord, we are also bound to every universally accepted document and doctrine of the Church which does not disagree (implicitly or explicitly) with anything that is written in the Book of Concord or which the Book of Concord does not explicitly condemn or reject - ?
(12) I didn't think that anybody subscribed unconditionally to the Book of Concord anymore - ?
(13) I didn't think that anybody ever subscribed unconditionally to the Book of Concord - ?
3 comments:
Well, I'll jump in.
I think I'd go with number 10, although all of this is probably implicit in number 1 as well (forget about the garlic juice). I'd say we are bound to the documents that the BOC points us to for further clarification, etc. I also believe, to be the church described in the confessions, we are to be using the historic vestments, liturgical forms, mass every Lord's Day, etc. I think Walther pretty well says as much in his essay on the subject of confessional subscription.
Now according to this definition, we probably don't have many pastors who really subscribe unconditionally to the Confessions. Now, I know that some of these things take time, but we should all be working toward being the church described in our Confessions, in each of our congregations. FWIW
Actually - with how you phrase it, I would say number 9 (as an extension of number one). Why? Because the analogy with garlic juice or the magnets are actually faithful explantions of ideas in Scripture - they successfully teach doctrine. Those images explain the theological idea in question in an approachible way, especially to those when it was first written. Now, is it scientifically solid - no, but given the context of its time, it teaches the doctrine well. An analogy is to teach, not to cause the formation of scientific doctrine.
It would be like Scaer making an allusion to Bally Kiss Angel. In 75 years if someone comes across a recorded lecture they might not view that particular show with much love, but it still is a quite valid teaching point. We make too much of anachronisms.
Agreed with Pastors Cota and Juhl.
Post a Comment