TAG
A quick comment on the Atlanta Youth Gathering, Do Life! Ubuntu. As a pastor, it was a very helpful trip to share quality time with the group, get to know the youth and chaperones more deeply, all of that. I can't say enough how much I appreciated going away on retreat, just being with the group. The same might have been accomplished at a outdoor ministry center or on a service trip, but Atlanta was the center of this trip, so...
But I continue to be surprised by these two things: (1) the whole gathering is a media extravaganza of gigantic proportions (by my estimate, the program, not even counting hotel, travel, and food costs, runs to about $5 million per week) apparently because the gospel, in order to be communicated to this generation, needs the assistance of flash and noise (much of the flash and noise I enjoyed, to be honest), and 2) all youth gatherings seem to be centered around social action and certain political pet projects of the ELCA. Again, I happen to agree with the politics, and support the causes the Gathering supported. Nevertheless, I feel that my underlying theological presuppositions are radically different. Why can't there be a youth gathering that doesn't deal with politics? Why must all confession of the faith move immediately to- "so you can do this and that because of your faith". Why can't it center on this- "Christ has done thus and so for you". Why mightn't it not be more evangelical, focusing on the repentance and the confession of sin. That is likely a better place for the beginning of "renewal", in any event.
No postings this coming week as we are in Newfoundland.
Monday, July 28, 2003
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Excursus on Confessional Authority
An observation: when ordained to serve the ELCA, a new pastor has to promise to teach and preach according to the Lutheran confessions. This means the whole Book of Concord. Does this mean that the pastor is now bound to respect as equals the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord? Not exactly. My German forebears are now turning over in their graves but my Danish relatives leap for Joy.
When the Reformation spread to other countries, including Denmark in Luther's lifetime, the main tool used was the Augsburg Confession. The Danes and eventually the Norwegians also took on the Small Catechism. After all, you have a formal document for public use and then the catechism to teach the faith. I don't know the situation in Sweden or in Finland.
This arrangement in confessional documents extended to many of the immigrant churches in the United States. When asked to list their confessional documents some Lutherans would say: "Augsburg and the Catechism," others would say: "Augsburg, its Apology, and the Catechism," while some would insist until blue in the face: "the whole Book of Concord." The latter would make fellowship dependent upon the whole Book of Concord, and that is the situation, at least in the letter, that we find ourselves in the ELCA, at least on paper.
Early in this interchange between this various Lutheran parties in the United States there emerged another problem: do I subscribe to the Confessions because they agree with Scripture or only insofar as the agree with Scripture. The parties that held to the whole Book of Concord scheme usually landed in the former camp and others across the spectrum. This question affects which confessional documents you recognize. It is worth mentioning that the Formula of Concord begins with a statement on Scriptural authority and that it more or less says: "in the case of a shootout between the Scripture and the Confessions, the Scripture wins."
Confessional authority, like Biblical authority, is a matter that emerges in the communities that used the documents after their writing and being brought together. Thus, it is difficult to look at the German situation with its collusion between the church and the rulers who adopted the confessions as legal norms for governing the churches and see this arrangement as the evangelical norm for confessional authority. Adherence to the Augsburg Confession was the bare minimum norm for the legal existence of Lutheran territories after the Peace of Westphalia. As Karl Barth repeated numerous times, "'back to' is never a good slogan."
When professing to teach and preach in accord with the confessions it makes sense to identify a hierarchy of authorities. The Augsburg Confession first and then the Catechism, and then the rest of the Confessions with the Formula at the 'bottom.' This is respectful not only of the non-German Lutheran traditions but also the Confessions themselves.
An observation: when ordained to serve the ELCA, a new pastor has to promise to teach and preach according to the Lutheran confessions. This means the whole Book of Concord. Does this mean that the pastor is now bound to respect as equals the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord? Not exactly. My German forebears are now turning over in their graves but my Danish relatives leap for Joy.
When the Reformation spread to other countries, including Denmark in Luther's lifetime, the main tool used was the Augsburg Confession. The Danes and eventually the Norwegians also took on the Small Catechism. After all, you have a formal document for public use and then the catechism to teach the faith. I don't know the situation in Sweden or in Finland.
This arrangement in confessional documents extended to many of the immigrant churches in the United States. When asked to list their confessional documents some Lutherans would say: "Augsburg and the Catechism," others would say: "Augsburg, its Apology, and the Catechism," while some would insist until blue in the face: "the whole Book of Concord." The latter would make fellowship dependent upon the whole Book of Concord, and that is the situation, at least in the letter, that we find ourselves in the ELCA, at least on paper.
Early in this interchange between this various Lutheran parties in the United States there emerged another problem: do I subscribe to the Confessions because they agree with Scripture or only insofar as the agree with Scripture. The parties that held to the whole Book of Concord scheme usually landed in the former camp and others across the spectrum. This question affects which confessional documents you recognize. It is worth mentioning that the Formula of Concord begins with a statement on Scriptural authority and that it more or less says: "in the case of a shootout between the Scripture and the Confessions, the Scripture wins."
Confessional authority, like Biblical authority, is a matter that emerges in the communities that used the documents after their writing and being brought together. Thus, it is difficult to look at the German situation with its collusion between the church and the rulers who adopted the confessions as legal norms for governing the churches and see this arrangement as the evangelical norm for confessional authority. Adherence to the Augsburg Confession was the bare minimum norm for the legal existence of Lutheran territories after the Peace of Westphalia. As Karl Barth repeated numerous times, "'back to' is never a good slogan."
When professing to teach and preach in accord with the confessions it makes sense to identify a hierarchy of authorities. The Augsburg Confession first and then the Catechism, and then the rest of the Confessions with the Formula at the 'bottom.' This is respectful not only of the non-German Lutheran traditions but also the Confessions themselves.
Friday, July 18, 2003
Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages.
Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be
observed which may be observed without sin, and which are
profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as
particular holy-days, festivals, and the like.
Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that
consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance
was necessary to salvation.
They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to
propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for
sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith.
Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc.,
instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins,
are useless and contrary to the Gospel.
This is an interesting (and seemingly light and innocent) topic of the Augsburg Confession, but one heavy on the minds of most worshippers. Essentially, the Reformers are here talking about liturgical or pious actions performed during worship or at other times that are supposed to observed for the sake of "acting out" the faith. Feast days of the church year like Easter and Christmas are included here, plus feasts for the saints. I imagine also would be included things like fasting before worship on Sunday mornings, abstaining from fish on Friday, giving up some kind of food during Lent, etc.
The rule is also quite simple- if the usage draws people into sin and temptation, don't do it. What is temptation and sin? When the usage is confused with the work Christ alone does for us in propitiating God, meriting grace, or making satisfaction for sin. In other words, when the usage is perceived as a human work that accomplishes salvation apart from or above and beyond the work of Jesus Christ, it is a usage that should be gotten rid of. I imagine they also mean any usage that leads people to other kinds of sin.
Here's my current short list of usages that trouble me, some because I feel drawn to do them, others because I think they show something false I wish weren't shown through action:
1. The tri-fold crossing over forehead, lips and heart before reading the gospels. I believe this is a wonderful non-verbal response to the gospel on the part of the congregation and pastor. It should be re-instituted.
2. The lifting up of the offering basket in front of the altar or cross- get rid of it.
3. Genuflecting, and bowing during the words of institution- yes, use it.
4. Old versus new Lord's Prayer- this is one of the most common topics to come up in our congregation. Almost everyone believes the old should be used. I tend to agree.
That's enough of a list to get us started. I believe the point is that the usages are for the sake of good order in the church, and they are encouraged if they teach the Christian faith purely rather than teaching that our actions merit salvation. They are there for building up our faith by doing things that we believe let us freely show our love of God and honor His Word, not to get anything, but simply because we are called to worship in that way.
Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be
observed which may be observed without sin, and which are
profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as
particular holy-days, festivals, and the like.
Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that
consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance
was necessary to salvation.
They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to
propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for
sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith.
Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc.,
instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins,
are useless and contrary to the Gospel.
This is an interesting (and seemingly light and innocent) topic of the Augsburg Confession, but one heavy on the minds of most worshippers. Essentially, the Reformers are here talking about liturgical or pious actions performed during worship or at other times that are supposed to observed for the sake of "acting out" the faith. Feast days of the church year like Easter and Christmas are included here, plus feasts for the saints. I imagine also would be included things like fasting before worship on Sunday mornings, abstaining from fish on Friday, giving up some kind of food during Lent, etc.
The rule is also quite simple- if the usage draws people into sin and temptation, don't do it. What is temptation and sin? When the usage is confused with the work Christ alone does for us in propitiating God, meriting grace, or making satisfaction for sin. In other words, when the usage is perceived as a human work that accomplishes salvation apart from or above and beyond the work of Jesus Christ, it is a usage that should be gotten rid of. I imagine they also mean any usage that leads people to other kinds of sin.
Here's my current short list of usages that trouble me, some because I feel drawn to do them, others because I think they show something false I wish weren't shown through action:
1. The tri-fold crossing over forehead, lips and heart before reading the gospels. I believe this is a wonderful non-verbal response to the gospel on the part of the congregation and pastor. It should be re-instituted.
2. The lifting up of the offering basket in front of the altar or cross- get rid of it.
3. Genuflecting, and bowing during the words of institution- yes, use it.
4. Old versus new Lord's Prayer- this is one of the most common topics to come up in our congregation. Almost everyone believes the old should be used. I tend to agree.
That's enough of a list to get us started. I believe the point is that the usages are for the sake of good order in the church, and they are encouraged if they teach the Christian faith purely rather than teaching that our actions merit salvation. They are there for building up our faith by doing things that we believe let us freely show our love of God and honor His Word, not to get anything, but simply because we are called to worship in that way.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
XIV. Order in the Church
It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call.
Now by a regular call I imagine the person preaching and teaching has been called by the local congregation and this person's ministry is recognized as regular by the broader church body. The emphasis here is not on intelligence, right doctrine, education, qualifications, etc., per se, but rather on the regularity of the call. The person hasn't jumped up up into the pulpit, pushing the normal preacher out of the way, or grabbed the elements and run to the back of the sanctuary to administer them from there.
This is trite, but also, this kind of thing has happened. The emphasis on a regular call has helped keep congregations in order in terms of relationships and right ordering of who does what.
The problem with the order, though, is when lots of things are attached to what it means to prepare for a regular call. In the ELCA, currently, a regular call includes graduation from an M.Div. program (4 years) after completion of an undergratduate degree, plus all of the other stuff- approval interviews, interviews, and more interviews, essays, psychological and identity examinations, etc. Now, we're all for regularity, but if your sphincter is too tight you won't be regular, you'll be constipated.
Regular call must and needs to be oriented towards getting the gospel out, providing ministers for the people, and these preparations, though worthy at times, can end up in the way. Ice bergs are powerful but they move awful slow.
It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call.
Now by a regular call I imagine the person preaching and teaching has been called by the local congregation and this person's ministry is recognized as regular by the broader church body. The emphasis here is not on intelligence, right doctrine, education, qualifications, etc., per se, but rather on the regularity of the call. The person hasn't jumped up up into the pulpit, pushing the normal preacher out of the way, or grabbed the elements and run to the back of the sanctuary to administer them from there.
This is trite, but also, this kind of thing has happened. The emphasis on a regular call has helped keep congregations in order in terms of relationships and right ordering of who does what.
The problem with the order, though, is when lots of things are attached to what it means to prepare for a regular call. In the ELCA, currently, a regular call includes graduation from an M.Div. program (4 years) after completion of an undergratduate degree, plus all of the other stuff- approval interviews, interviews, and more interviews, essays, psychological and identity examinations, etc. Now, we're all for regularity, but if your sphincter is too tight you won't be regular, you'll be constipated.
Regular call must and needs to be oriented towards getting the gospel out, providing ministers for the people, and these preparations, though worthy at times, can end up in the way. Ice bergs are powerful but they move awful slow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)