Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(second part of several to follow)

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(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" - ?

I've already ranted elsewhere about Samuel Simon Schmucker and his General Synodical Platform. This sort of position is really an "I'll follow the Lutheran Confessions in so far as they agree with whatever criteria I wish to establish", that is, it is a very conditional subscription to the Book of Concord. Cyberbrethren has pointed out elsewhere that someone who wishes to maintain an "in so far as" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions might as well subscribe to the telephone directory or Webster's Dictionary (he may have said, "The Koran",) in so far as it agrees with the Scriptures. If a confessional subscription indicates just how much of the Lutheran Confessions you believe are in agreement with the Scriptures, then to subscribe only in so far as is to leave the field wide open, saying that some parts do and that other parts may not. Ultimately, this boils down to a conditional subscription.

Perhaps the only kind word that I have for Schmucker is that he at least had the honesty to clearly delineate which portions of the Augsburg Confession he found agreeable and to physically cut out those portions with which he disagreed. Schmucker at least defined his in so far as subscription in clearer terms, whereas others leave theirs clouded in ambiguity.

* * * * *

Maybe what's missing in this whole discussion is a clear definition of what it means to "subscribe" to the Lutheran Confessions. Is it a token "pledge of allegiance" - something that we "keep on the books" so that we can maintain our 21st century ties to our long-dead 16th century forefathers, some formality that somehow permits us to retain the name "Lutheran"? Or is it (was it always intended) to be something more - to say that we also believe, teach, confess, and do what is written therein as it is in accord with the Scriptural faith?

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(first part of several to follow)

I have to apologize; I was not playing nice in my previous post.

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(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 - ?

This statement sounds good, and in and of itself, it is certainly true. Most who call themselves "Lutherans" today will acknowledge that the Book of Concord contains the beliefs, teachings, confessions, and practices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century.

And yet, (this is where I was not playing nice), this nice-sounding statement does not go far enough; it intentionally stops short. It answers the question: "What did they believe?" It does not say anything about me. For my part, I am not making an unconditional subscription unless I say, "Put my name right after theirs. It is my belief, teaching, confession and practice today as well." That is where you see a great divide among Lutherans today, on the question of the extent to which their sixteenth century confessions are still binding for us today.

As an example of this division, we might consider a recently formulated position released by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (Thanks for the heads-up to Cyberbrethren with the post entitled, "The Situation of the 16th Century No Longer Applies in the 21st Century"; the referenced ELCA news release is also available here). The press release indicates that the ELCA's Church Council "repudiated":

statements in the Formula of Concord and declared that condemnations in the Augsburg Confession directed at the Anabaptists do not apply to today's Mennonite Church USA. The Formula of Concord and Augsburg Confession are among the Lutheran confessions written in Europe in the 16th century.

From the declaration itself, pay particular attention to the following:

The Augsburg Confession's condemnations of the Anabaptists in the matter of baptismal faith and practice (CA IX) and participation in the police power of the state (CA XVI) are properly the subject of future conversation between our churches. We note that Lutheran churches in France and Germany have adopted statements declaring that these condemnations are not church-dividing and that they do not apply to Mennonites in their countries. The Lutheran World Federation has begun conversations with the Mennonite World Conference and we support their efforts to ascertain whether the differences that remain between our two churches in these matters are in fact church-dividing.

What is the point in highlighting these things? It would seem to me that the ELCA wishes to declare that what was believed, taught, confessed, and practiced in the sixteenth century is no longer relevant for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the twenty-first century. Why? We live in a different context, and things have changed. Rather than maintaining divisions because of doctrine, we should set aside the doctrine, or at the very least, say that it doesn't matter any more.

I would maintain that it is not enough for one who wishes to subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions "unconditionally" to merely acknowledge that the Book of Concord relates what "they believed" in the sixteenth century. If the sentence that follows "this is what they believed" is not "and it is our belief, teaching, confession, and practice, too", then you are looking at some form of a conditional subscription.

PLEASE NOTE: The press release and the declaration of the Church Council of the ELCA both failed to indicate where the Lutheran Confessions actually urge governmental violence against those who held/hold to Anabaptist teachings. (I am not aware of any such urgings.) The word "condemned" is not always used (nor, I suspect, was it exclusively used in the sixteenth century) to mean "capital punishment", "imprisonment, exile, and execution". Dictionary.com kindly highlights several of the ways in which the word "condemn" is used; please consider the following:

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring.

4. to judge or pronounce to be unfit for use or service.

7. to declare incurable.

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 - ?

The Small Catechism from the 1854 Henkel Concordia is now up and running at catechismreader. Portions of the Large Catechism are being gradually added as I am able.

Working my way through the Ten Commandments, I find myself praying for the Creed (and Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Brief Exhortation to Confession), as the Commandments are nothing but the strictest preaching of the Law intended to kill the sinner dead in his tracks, with no path of escape. You who think yourselves righteous - read what Luther says of the 10 Commandments in the Large Catechism; and if you still think yourselves righteous, then I can be of no help to you.

Some thoughts on Liturgy and Doctrine from Hermann Sasse

"What causes me to write is rather an issue of the Confessional Lutheran (July-August 1956).... What [Burgdorf, the editor] and his friends fail to realize is the necessity of a liturgical movement within the Lutheran Church which would help to revive the great "Catholic" heritage of our fathers, the liturgical life of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was this liturgy that has prevented Lutheran Orthodoxy from becoming a mere system or rational theology.

"We cannot revive the theology of our fathers without realizing what theology meant to them: praise of God and doctrine at the same time. One has often the impression that the correct doctrine on the Sacraments is regarded as more important than their celebration. This is the danger for your church, though I must admit having read wonderful sermons on the Sacrament by your theologians, in which the full devotional content of the orthodox liturgy found an expression. But Pieper's Dogmatics is not satisfactory in this respect, due perhaps to the influence of the last stage of Orthodoxy in the later seventeenth century, when the Sacraments had lost their 'existential' meaning. We observe already with Melanchthon... a mere pedagogical understanding of the liturgy. This development went on. The two sides of orthodoxy, orthodoxy as 'pure doctrine' and orthodoxy as 'right worship,' still happily united with men like Johann Gerhard and Paul Gerhardt, were more and more separated which led to a decay of both. Whatever the causes of the development in your church may have been, ... the great task remains for you, as for all Lutheran churches, to regain that lost unity."

When "confessional churches" become "unliturgical", Sasse calls them "ineffective"; they may also fall off the horse in the other direction, when liturgical movements become "heretical or Romanistic". Sasse holds out the unity of the two as the goal, the task being to rediscover and maintain both without falling into tragedy on either side of the horse.

Source:
Hermann Sasse, "Letter to Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1956)," in The Lonely Way: Selected Letters and Essays, volume II (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pp. 239-40.

Those who subscribe to the Augsburg Confession acknowledge that, according to the Scriptures, Christians may participate in their government (AC XVI). The confession specifically states that Christians may hold legislative, judicial, executive offices, among other civil positions (such as being a soldier). Each Christian is encouraged to carry out his vocation in life; today, as a U. S. citizen who is registered to vote, I exercised that opportunity.

Announcing Augsburgreader

For those interested in the Lutheran Confessions, Concordiareader is pleased to announce Augsburgreader. At its introduction, Augsburgreader is a transcription of a nineteenth century English translation of the 1580 Book of Concord's "Unaltered Augsburg Confession". Using the blogger/blogspot platform, Augsburgreader makes this translation, originally published by Solomon D. Henkel and Brothers in 1854, available to the blogosphere in a searchable format.

The text used for this transcription is available on-line in digital format, together with various other works, at Lutheran Legacy, where volunteers are being sought to aid in the work of transcription. (Please note: Concordiareader is not affiliated - either officially or unofficially - with the folks at Lutheran Legacy. Browse their site; it's interesting to see what they've made available.)

For now, the comment feature at Augsburgreader is disabled. If you would like leave a comment, you may respond to this post.