"On Preaching" from the Confessions (#1)
"In addition, it would be well to preach to parents on the nature of their office, how they should treat those committed to their authority. Although the duty of superiors is not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments, it is frequently dealt with in many other passages of Scripture, and God intends it to be included in this commandment in which he speaks of father and mother. ... Parents should consider that they owe obedience to God, and that, above all, they should earnestly and faithfully discharge the duties of their office, not only to provide for the material support of their children, servants, subjects, etc., but especially to bring them up to the praise and honor of God." (Tappert, 388; Large Catechism, 4th Commandment, 167f.)
Monday, September 11, 2006
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Cyberbrethren and Conditional Subscriptions
Some time ago, Cyberbrethren posted a concise and helpful explanation of the differences between quia and quaetenus subscriptions to the Lutheran Confessions, about which I would like to comment. I would also like to address the issue of "a pious sounding conditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions", because there are all sorts of "goats dressed up like sheep" on that issue.
Before I get to any of that, there is another matter that I would like to address. In setting up a particular example of "a pious sounding conditional subscription", Cyberbrethren constructed an argument from a logical fallacy called "the straw man"; it was an argument against a misrepresentation of someone else's position. (No, dear reader, you have not stumbled onto Bill Cwirla's blog; with you, I am eagerly anticipating the next installment in his logical fallacy series...) Where one might be tempted to offer charity in assuming that Cyberbrethren's comments were based on a misreading of "a certain blog site", there have been a string of posts from Cyberbrethren which - without naming this "certain Pastor" or his congregation or identifying the statuary in their building - seem rather aggressive towards them.
On his own blog, the "certain Pastor" had stated that he prefers the words and thoughts of church fathers such as St Leo more than his own words or thoughts. (I'm puzzled as to how this might constitute an "unhealthy regard for the Early Church Fathers".) He then went on to say,
"I tremble at the hubris of attempting to correct them [the fathers], cognizant of the fact that they are more knowledgable of the Scriptures, and holier in speech and conduct, than I" [emphasis mine].
In responding to such a post, a blogger should at least look at the context (in this case, an introduction to a paraphrase of something written by St Leo) and should respond to what the statement is actually saying: the "certain Pastor" wishes to exercise great care as *he* attempts to correct and paraphrase the words of such men as were undoubtedly "more knowledgable of the Scriptures" and "holier in speech and conduct" than himself. Construing this post (which never even mentions the Lutheran Confessions) into some sort of attempt to make a pious sounding conditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is really beneath Cyberbrethren. At best, such misrepresentations are annoying; at worst, they cause a blogger's reliability to be called into question.
Some time ago, Cyberbrethren posted a concise and helpful explanation of the differences between quia and quaetenus subscriptions to the Lutheran Confessions, about which I would like to comment. I would also like to address the issue of "a pious sounding conditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions", because there are all sorts of "goats dressed up like sheep" on that issue.
Before I get to any of that, there is another matter that I would like to address. In setting up a particular example of "a pious sounding conditional subscription", Cyberbrethren constructed an argument from a logical fallacy called "the straw man"; it was an argument against a misrepresentation of someone else's position. (No, dear reader, you have not stumbled onto Bill Cwirla's blog; with you, I am eagerly anticipating the next installment in his logical fallacy series...) Where one might be tempted to offer charity in assuming that Cyberbrethren's comments were based on a misreading of "a certain blog site", there have been a string of posts from Cyberbrethren which - without naming this "certain Pastor" or his congregation or identifying the statuary in their building - seem rather aggressive towards them.
On his own blog, the "certain Pastor" had stated that he prefers the words and thoughts of church fathers such as St Leo more than his own words or thoughts. (I'm puzzled as to how this might constitute an "unhealthy regard for the Early Church Fathers".) He then went on to say,
"I tremble at the hubris of attempting to correct them [the fathers], cognizant of the fact that they are more knowledgable of the Scriptures, and holier in speech and conduct, than I" [emphasis mine].
In responding to such a post, a blogger should at least look at the context (in this case, an introduction to a paraphrase of something written by St Leo) and should respond to what the statement is actually saying: the "certain Pastor" wishes to exercise great care as *he* attempts to correct and paraphrase the words of such men as were undoubtedly "more knowledgable of the Scriptures" and "holier in speech and conduct" than himself. Construing this post (which never even mentions the Lutheran Confessions) into some sort of attempt to make a pious sounding conditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is really beneath Cyberbrethren. At best, such misrepresentations are annoying; at worst, they cause a blogger's reliability to be called into question.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Conditional subscriptions to the Lutheran Confessions
I’ve been revisiting my class notes from “Lutheran Church in America”. With a few notable exceptions along the way, American “Lutherans” have generally subscribed to the Lutheran Confessions conditionally. From the colonial days down to the present, where the Confessions are even acknowledged, the subscription has been typically rendered: "I subscribe insofar as (quaetenus) the Confessions agree with the teaching of the Scriptures" or "I subscribe to the ‘doctrinal articles’ or to the ‘fundamental doctrinal articles’ articulated in the Symbolical Books.” One notorious example of this type of confessor is Samuel Simon Schmucker, who rather purposefully took up such a subscription in 1826 when he became the President of the Gettysburg Seminary. According to my notes, it seems that Schmucker spent the rest of his life trying to work out exactly which of the “doctrinal articles” are “fundamental”, as can be seen especially in Schmucker’s “American Rescension of the Augsburg Confession” - “The Definite Synodical Platform” of 1855.
The norm of conditional subscriptions does have a few notable (and perhaps debatable) exceptions. The Synod formed by the Henkel family in Tennessee in 1820 produced a quia subscription to the unaltered Augsburg Confession but fell short of explicitly subscribing unconditionally to the entire Book of Concord. In 1845, some twenty-five years later, the followers of Grabau in the Buffalo Synod became the first in the U.S. to produce an unconditional subscription to the entire Book of Concord; they were followed two years later by the Missouri Synod, which was organized in 1847.
I’ve been revisiting my class notes from “Lutheran Church in America”. With a few notable exceptions along the way, American “Lutherans” have generally subscribed to the Lutheran Confessions conditionally. From the colonial days down to the present, where the Confessions are even acknowledged, the subscription has been typically rendered: "I subscribe insofar as (quaetenus) the Confessions agree with the teaching of the Scriptures" or "I subscribe to the ‘doctrinal articles’ or to the ‘fundamental doctrinal articles’ articulated in the Symbolical Books.” One notorious example of this type of confessor is Samuel Simon Schmucker, who rather purposefully took up such a subscription in 1826 when he became the President of the Gettysburg Seminary. According to my notes, it seems that Schmucker spent the rest of his life trying to work out exactly which of the “doctrinal articles” are “fundamental”, as can be seen especially in Schmucker’s “American Rescension of the Augsburg Confession” - “The Definite Synodical Platform” of 1855.
The norm of conditional subscriptions does have a few notable (and perhaps debatable) exceptions. The Synod formed by the Henkel family in Tennessee in 1820 produced a quia subscription to the unaltered Augsburg Confession but fell short of explicitly subscribing unconditionally to the entire Book of Concord. In 1845, some twenty-five years later, the followers of Grabau in the Buffalo Synod became the first in the U.S. to produce an unconditional subscription to the entire Book of Concord; they were followed two years later by the Missouri Synod, which was organized in 1847.
Friday, March 31, 2006
"Concordia Discordia" posted a week ago by Aardvark Alley discusses the recent LCMS Doctrinal Review decision to revoke their certification of the Reader's Edition of the Lutheran Confessions. The post also includes commentary and sources and links to others who have been commenting on this topic.
Also worthy of a look is Watersblogged's "If the Confessions may contradict your position", as well as Cyberstone's posting of Pastor John Frahm's Fact Sheet on Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions.
Also worthy of a look is Watersblogged's "If the Confessions may contradict your position", as well as Cyberstone's posting of Pastor John Frahm's Fact Sheet on Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions.
On with the Concordiareaders! I had hoped to start off with a few biographical sketches of people who had in one way or another attached themselves to the Lutheran Confessions. Opening the floor up to suggestions, Harry kindly commented about how the Confessions had impacted his life. It wasn't quite where I had intended to go (I was thinking mostly about dead people,) but it might make for interesting conversation to hear from living people how the Lutheran Confessions have impacted their lives. Eventually, my goal is to take up some of the well-known historical figures (C. F. W. Walther, Wilhelm Loehe, Hermann Sasse, Samuel Simon Schmucker) and look at how they interacted with the Lutheran Confessions.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Who else reads the Concordia? Introducing: The Concordiareaders! Upcoming posts will include the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - people who were transformed by reading the Concordia as well as those who tried to transform (read: disfigure) the Evangelical-Lutheran Confessions. Any guesses or suggestions?
Saturday, September 03, 2005
"The Augsburg Confession and its Apology are LEGAL documents inasmuch as they are theological ones." In his blog entry: Suing the Synod, Part 4, the Rev'd Headmaster Joel Brondos offers some thought-provoking comments about the legal intent of the Confessions and the context out of which they arose.
The Augustana and its Apology are certainly not the only symbols to arise out of a legal context. Emperor Charles V convened the Diet at Augsburg as a legal effort to resolve theological tensions in his empire. However, it was twelve hundred years earlier that Constantine invoked his authority as ruler of the empire to assemble the Bishops and convene the Council of Nicea, a similar "legal" effort to resolve theological differences.
As I think about these things, I am curious about those in the early church who confessed the Nicene Creed in the liturgy. Did they see this practice as a "legal" sort of confession? Taking a quick glance at Frank Senn's Christian Liturgy, the liturgical use of the Creed doesn't appear until the late fifth century (by the Monophysites) and the early sixth century (in the rite of Constantinople). According to Senn, the Monophysites in 476 were attempting "to emphasize their loyalty to the Council of Nicea" by their practice of confessing the Nicene Creed in the liturgy (127).
Giving this issue further thought, I wonder how much consideration the Lutheran confessors gave to the legal similarities between the Nicene Creed and their Augsburg Confession. If the opening words of the very first article of their Confession are any indication, it could be said that Nicea was in their foremost thoughts as they made their Confession at Augsburg.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The word out on the street is that the new Concordia Reader's Edition is selling quickly. Get your own copy today while it is still available from CPH for the very low price of $20.
The Augustana and its Apology are certainly not the only symbols to arise out of a legal context. Emperor Charles V convened the Diet at Augsburg as a legal effort to resolve theological tensions in his empire. However, it was twelve hundred years earlier that Constantine invoked his authority as ruler of the empire to assemble the Bishops and convene the Council of Nicea, a similar "legal" effort to resolve theological differences.
As I think about these things, I am curious about those in the early church who confessed the Nicene Creed in the liturgy. Did they see this practice as a "legal" sort of confession? Taking a quick glance at Frank Senn's Christian Liturgy, the liturgical use of the Creed doesn't appear until the late fifth century (by the Monophysites) and the early sixth century (in the rite of Constantinople). According to Senn, the Monophysites in 476 were attempting "to emphasize their loyalty to the Council of Nicea" by their practice of confessing the Nicene Creed in the liturgy (127).
Giving this issue further thought, I wonder how much consideration the Lutheran confessors gave to the legal similarities between the Nicene Creed and their Augsburg Confession. If the opening words of the very first article of their Confession are any indication, it could be said that Nicea was in their foremost thoughts as they made their Confession at Augsburg.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The word out on the street is that the new Concordia Reader's Edition is selling quickly. Get your own copy today while it is still available from CPH for the very low price of $20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)