Last week's epistle from the Council of Presidents stated that the devil takes delight in distracting divisions within our synod of churches. But is this necessarily true? Are divisions necessarily bad?
Here's what the apostle Paul said to a divided congregation:
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (1 Cor. 11:17-19)
Now bear in mind that this is a congregation, not a church body, to whom Paul is writing. A synod of churches is not the same as a congregation. A congregation is a gathering around Word and Sacrament; a synod is a fellowship of churches who are on the same page in terms of confession and practice. However, arguing from greater to lesser, if it's goes for the congregation, it should also go for the synod.
At first glance, Paul seems to indicate that the divisions in the Corinthian congregation are bad. He does not commend them for it, and he says that their assemblies are for the worse on account of it. The problem was brought to his attention by some folks from Chloe's household who reported to Paul that the congregation was divided. Some said, "I belong to Paul," some said, "I belong to Cephas," some said, "I belong to Apollos," still others said, "I belong to Christ." There were those who fancied themselves to be "spirituals" who looked down on others who were considered "carnals." Bad news all the way around.
The Lord's Supper is, at least in part, a sacrament of unity, that is, it manfests and reveals our unity in Christ. "You are all one Body for you all partake of the one Bread." Divisions within a congregation contradict this unity. This is why intra-congregational squabbles need to be settled before communion, and inter-congregational issues need to be ironed out before there can be fellowship.
Dissensions and divisions have their root in our old Adamic flesh (Gal 5:20; 1 Tim 6:4; Titus 3:9). The old Adam loves to stir up trouble wherever he can find it. Dissensions and divisions in the church arise from false teachings and false teachers who subvert the Gospel (Rom 16:17; Jude 19). Paul's desire for the Corinthian congregation is that it be united, of the same mind and judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Yet Paul goes on to make this remarkable statement: "It is necessary that there be divisions (Gk: heresies) among you so that those who are proven might be manifest among you" (1 Cor 11:19). In other words, the soundness of a teacher is tested in the face of controversy, and divisions serve the purpose of showing who is proven.
Now that would cast a slightly different light on things. Division and dissension are bad; no doubt about it. They are of the flesh and arise out of Spirit-less unbelief. Yet God uses these things, as He uses all things - the good, the bad, and the ugly - to work His ultimate saving purposes. In other words, God takes the crap of our controversies and turns it into a rich compost from which grow sound teaching and teachers. There's a metaphor for your next sermon!
Consider the nation Israel. After David, the nation was divided between northern Israel and southern Judah, with Judah being the chosen successor to the messianic throne. Even within Judah, the kingdom was divided between the faithful remnant and the faithless majority, a point that Paul makes abundantly clear in Romans 9-10. If you apply Paul's remnant theology in Romans 9-11 to the church today, you will conclude that God always reserves a select remnant to show the righteousness of faith while the rest pursue a righteousness of works. In other words, "Israel" - whether the OT or the NT model - always appears in this world as weak and divided.
Church history bears this out as well. This history of the church is not a picture of great, peaceful unanimity with everyone holding hands and singing Kum-ba-yah, but of sharp conflict. The first such conflict was the emergence of Christianity from Pharisaic Judaism, which was no small feat. The NT is the historic record of that tension between a Torah of works and a Torah of faith. Were it not for this tension, the book of Romans might never have been written.
The great creeds of Christendom were similarly forged in controversy. The Nicene Creed was written specifically to condemn and exclude Arius and his followers who denied the full divinity of the Son. The third article of the Nicene Creed, added at Constantinople in AD 381, was written to ward off those who made the Holy Spirit less than a full Person of the undivided Holy Trinity. The great doctrines of the two natures of Christ and the triunity of God were all hammered out in, with, and under controversy. The central article of justification by grace through faith was brought to marvelous light by the conflicts of the Reformation. Doctrine is forged in the crucible of controversy.
This is the reality of the Church's life under the cross. There will be conflicts because there will always be denials of the Gospel. The theology of glory would view all conflict as bad and something to be avoided at all costs. But viewed through the theology of the cross, conflict is the fever of the Church's immune system at work, isolating and killing off internal threats to the Gospel. Just as state and religious persecution are the twin engines of church growth in the book of Acts, conflict is the wet stone on which the church's doctrinal sword is sharpened.
To say that the devil delights in our conflicts implies that those who cry "foul" are in league with the old evil foe. In the Reformation, that would put Luther on the side of the devil, a charge that the papacy was quick to hurl against him. Certainly no one wants to be the cause of division, nor should we be silent and complacent in the face of divisive words and actions. Lukewarm complacency is surely a delight to the devil.
Conflicts will inevitably happen whenever sinner-saints get together, even as the Church. We shouldn't be afraid when they occur. They just might be necessary.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Well said. It's too bad those who divide with false teaching find this teaching the most unbelievable of all.
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!
Pr. Cwirla,
This point you make is a truth many forget when searching for the elusive "church body without problems." Well stated.
However, I'm afraid this truth is also sometimes misused as an excuse for remaining in fellowship with those who are in error.
Granted, Christians should not separate immediately every time an error comes into existence. We must give time for those in error to be duly recognized, admonished, and hopefully repent. But at some point, if repentance does not occur, it becomes obvious that one is in a heterodox fellowship that is not going to return to orthodoxy. Example: "Confessional" churches in the ELCA.
"Those who are aware of the partial apostasy of the church fellowship to which they belong and
yet continue to remain within that fellowship are not to be considered among the weak but are
either the lukewarm whom the Lord will spit out of his mouth or Epicurean religious sceptics
who within their hearts would ask with Pilate, 'What is truth?'"
THESIS VI ON COMMUNION FELLOWSHIP
WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY
C. F. W. WALTHER, 1871
Are we there yet? I don't know. That's why I ask the question. But is it possible that the main reason we stay is because of the assets we would be giving up, like the seminaries, a college system, CPH, a radio station, etc.? If so, how does this differ from an individual who remains in a heterodox congregation because it has a beautiful facility, a successful radio and TV outreach, and other awesome programs?
As someone who's spent the large majority of his life in other denominations (nonLutheran), here's my take:
I think most people stay with a church because, they agree with what it teaches and stands for.
If things change, they might well leave. This is America, after all!
I think the other important thing is people and relationships within the local church. To me, that's the big thing.
I appreciate CPH and the Concordia colleges, and the seminaries. Other than Issues Etc, I don't really care about KFUO -- I don't think one or 2 Lutheran radio stations means a whole lot in terms of why someone would stay in the LCMS. To me, these things are peripheral to the local church.
And, other denoms. also have good publishing houses and seminaries that represent their point of view very well.
I think there's a balance we need to find, between, as Erich said, splitting every time there's an error and heterodoxy. I believe dividing should never be done lightly or arrogantly. But sometimes it's necessary.
Sometimes the divisions become irreconcilable splits, just as Paul and Barnabas could not work together again. But just as no one grows in divorce, no one grows in going our separate ways. We simply are confirmed in whatever position we happen to be, right or wrong.
Walther is captive to the notion of a "true visible church on earth" which influences much of what he says regarding fellowship.
Pr. Cwirla,
You say: "Walther is captive to the notion of a 'true visible church on earth' which influences much of what he says regarding fellowship."
So, are you saying the quote I provided is an instance of Walther going overboard because of an erroneous ecclesiology? Is partial apostasy to be tolerated in fellowship?
These are not rhetorical, but rather honest questions.
Fr Cwirla,
Would you commune some of these erring brothers? Would you commune with them or at their congregations?
These are sincere questions for I am still relatively new to the idea of closed communion.
Thank you.
Walther's ecclesiology is similar to Augustine's who posited a visible church of the "called" and an invisible church of the "elect" which is a subset of the former. Calvin's is similar. This is not quite the ecclesiology of the Confessions, which has the visible assembly as a mark of recognition (Kennzeichen) of the Church, which is in essence hidden.
Closed communion, where it is practiced in Christendom, is handled largely as a legal-juridical matter, whether in Rome, Orthodoxy, or confessional Lutheranism. Essentially it presupposes official recognition of fellowship. Where this is established, an individual pastor does not have the right to exclude someone who is in official fellowship.
A closed communion based on a person's confession (rather than church body membership) would be a matter of pastoral discretion. Here a pastor would have the right to exclude someone, even if they were in official fellowship.
In the LCMS, closed communion is determined according to the former, not the latter. Only when a person has no membership does the latter come into play.
Pr. Cwirla,
You have indicated that you believe Walther's ecclesiology was in error. I'm not sure I agree, but you also have not directly answered my question about the toleration of heterodoxy.
In your answer to David's line of questioning, you leave me with the understanding that if there was an LCMS congregation in your vicinity which was openly heterodox in doctrine and practice, you would still commune the members of that congregation who visit your altar as long as that other congregation maintains membership in the LCMS.
As for a congregation's orthodoxy, what is the most accurate indication of a congregation's public confession - membership in the LCMS, or the actual preaching, teaching, and practice found in that congregation?
As for an individual's orthodoxy, isn't a person's membership in a particular congregation an important aspect of his public confession of belief, such that if one is a member of a congregation whose preaching, teaching, and practice is openly heterodox, is he not confessing agreement with that body's heterodox beliefs, regardless of whether that body retains membership in a corporation that officially confesses orthodoxy?
Practically speaking, how many laymen know what the LCMS confesses vs. what their own pastor preaches and teaches and practices?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
The questions above are not pertinent to the original post.
"Not pertinent"?
I'm sorry to have asked questions you do not wish to answer, but I believe you do me (and the church!) a disservice by claiming these questions are "not pertinent" to the point made in your post.
Your post is about the necessity of divisions, as you quoted Paul saying: "It is necessary that there be divisions (Gk: heresies) among you so that those who are proven might be manifest among you." (1 Cor 11:19)
Why is it necessary that there be divisions? "...so that those who are proven might be manifest among you." The practical questions I am asking go straight to the point of how "those who are proven might be manifest among us."
If my questions are not pertinent, then you must be talking about divisions that don't divide. But that would be nonsense.
As I said above, "I'm afraid this truth is sometimes misused as an excuse for remaining in fellowship with those who are in error."
That's what happens when there are divisions that don't divide. People pay attention to the first half of Paul's statement, but they ignore the second half (or perhaps call it "not pertinent").
Ignoring the questions I have posed is why we have continued on for decades with divisions that don't divide. It's why our synod is now controlled by those we should have divided from long ago. It's why the council of presidents can now say with a straight face that these "divisions" are devilish distractions (in other words, "not pertinent").
"Not pertinent"?
I beg to differ.
The comment stream on a blog is hardly the proper forum to discuss the practices of any particular congregation including my own.
Recognize that the LCMS closed communion practice is conflicted. We presuppose confessional unity and then we set up a "closed communion" on the basis of officially declared church fellowship and enforce it by resolution of the synodical convention. It would require an action of the synod to declare that a congregation is not in fellowship with the LCMS. This is why I call our practice of closed-communion "legal-juridical."
Were an individual congregation to sever communion fellowship with another member congregation of the LCMS, the former congregation would be de facto declaring itself out of fellowship with the entire LCMS and in statu confessionis against the synod. By the very way we define church fellowship, an individual congregation cannot be the judge of whether or not we are in fellowship.
The only alternative would be to make Communion a congregationally closed communion, which certainly simplifies things, but this is not the position of the LCMS.
While withdrawal from fellowship is certainly an option, as Hermann Sasse once said, one should be slow to form fellowship ties and even slower to break them.
I note in passing the exegetical fact that St. Paul does not advocate suspension of Holy Communion in Corinth until they straighten out their differences.
He does appear to put the kabash on their potlucks, however.
Pr. Cwirla,
I didn't ask any questions about the specific practice of closed communion in your congregation. That was David. My questions were rather directed at specifically how "those who are proven might be manifest among us" - both congregations and individuals, but primarily congregations.
I am well aware of the way things have been for a very long time with regard to communion fellowship. That is, it is based upon the synodical membership of one's congregation. But I wasn't specifically asking about communion practices. Again, that was David.
My questions, copied and pasted here again, are as follows:
As for a congregation's orthodoxy, what is the most accurate indication of a congregation's public confession - membership in the LCMS, or the actual preaching, teaching, and practice found in that congregation?
As for an individual's orthodoxy, isn't a person's membership in a particular congregation an important aspect of his public confession of belief, such that if one is a member of a congregation whose preaching, teaching, and practice is openly heterodox, is he not confessing agreement with that body's heterodox beliefs, regardless of whether that body retains membership in a corporation that officially confesses orthodoxy?
Practically speaking, how many laymen know what the LCMS confesses vs. what their own pastor preaches and teaches and practices?
You see, my questions are really getting at the value of synodical membership as an indicator of confession and practice. The divisions we have are within our synod. So, synodical membership cannot, at this point, show how "those who are proven might be manifest among us.
Certainly the answers to these questions have potential ramifications on what could be a further discussion on the practice of closed communion, but that is NOT what I was asking about at this point in the conversation. I'm specifically asking how "those who are proven might be manifest among us."
The immediate application of the answers to my questions would instead be in regard to the job of "overseers" (a.k.a. bishops, a.k.a presidents in Missouri parlance). Which brings us right back to the Council of Presidents who, instead of doing their primary job of oversight, think these necessary divisions are all a "devilish distractions."
This problem I'm trying to shed light on here is primarily a failure of oversight, not an issue of congregational communion practices. I believe the overseers (bishops/presidents), with the help of the circuit counselors, should be the ones seeing to it that "those who are proven might be manifest among us."
Thanks for the clarification. I was conflating the two sets of questions in my mind.
To your questions:
As for a congregation's orthodoxy, what is the most accurate indication of a congregation's public confession - membership in the LCMS, or the actual preaching, teaching, and practice found in that congregation?
Answer: A congregation's actual preaching, teaching, and practice are the most accurate indicator of its public confession.
As for an individual's orthodoxy, isn't a person's membership in a particular congregation an important aspect of his public confession of belief, such that if one is a member of a congregation whose preaching, teaching, and practice is openly heterodox, is he not confessing agreement with that body's heterodox beliefs, regardless of whether that body retains membership in a corporation that officially confesses orthodoxy?
This is a multiply compound question. Single questions are much easier to answer clearly.
To the question: Is congregational membership an important aspect of one's public confession?
Answer: Yes, it is an important aspect,though it is not the exclusive aspect.
To the question: Is membership in a heterodox congregation de facto confessional agreement with that congregation's heterodoxy?
Answer: Not necessarily. People are notoriously ignorant and inconsistent.
To the question (not asked but implied): Does a congregation's membership in a heterodox church body indicate that the congregation is itself heterodox?
Answer: Not necessarily. Heterodoxy means an admixture of orthodoxy with heresy. A congregation may preach, teach, and practice orthodoxy and avoid the adulterating heresy. A church body cannot claim to be orthodox, however, if it tolerates heresy in its midst.
Practically speaking, how many laymen know what the LCMS confesses vs. what their own pastor preaches and teaches and practices?
Answer: I have no idea.
Thanks for your answers, Pr. Cwirla.
You write:
To the question: Is membership in a heterodox congregation de facto confessional agreement with that congregation's heterodoxy?
Answer: Not necessarily. People are notoriously ignorant and inconsistent.
Let me flesh this out a little further. I may be wrong, but it seems this answer fails to make a distinction between a person's public confession and his private beliefs. I was specifically talking about PUBLIC confession, not trying to search out one's private beliefs.
With individuals, we can never know for certain their private beliefs. We can only go on what their public confession is. Likewise, with a congregation, the ONLY thing we EVER have is a public confession.
That said, we agree that the membership of a congregation in a synod is only PART of its public confession of belief. It's preaching, teaching, and practice is what constitutes the reliable confession of altar and pulpit.
In fact, given that membership in a synod is ONLY meaningful if the preaching, teaching, and practice in that congregation is consistent with the official position of that synod, it follows that membership in a synod is, for all practical purposes, totally meaningless in respect to the question of whether "those who are proven might be manifest among you."
If only those congregations whose preaching, teaching, and practice are consistent with the official positions of the synod were allowed to remain members of synod, then their synodical membership would mean something in regard to this question. But this is NOT the case in the Missouri Synod, nor has it been for a very long time.
So I would contend that it synodical membership is NOT a valid basis for altar or pulpit fellowship. Yet that is, sadly, the practice in our churches that we agree to by being members of the Missouri Synod.
Seeing that the oversight of our bishops (i.e. presidents) has failed us so miserably, perhaps we must look to other means of oversight to ensure that "those who are proven might be manifest among us."
I just read tonight a very interesting suggestion by Pastor Joel Baseley. Though I'm not sure I'm ready to sign onto it, at least it seems to be a much more sound basis for seeing that "those who are proven might be manifest among us." In fact, it's the best suggestion I've heard yet as to how to address this issue of divisions.
Synodical membership is not a mark of the church. Where the Word is taught in it's purity, and the Sacraments are administered rightly, there is the church, and there is the confessional basis for fellowship. Where these signs are not found, there is "necessary division" that must ultimately take place, "so that those who are proven might be manifest among us."
One can never know the private beliefs of individuals, so we must rely on the public confession of individuals and congregations. An individual's membership in a church is that person's most public confession - perhaps his ONLY public confession - a public confession that he agrees with the doctrine and practice of that church. That individual's public confession might very well be at variance with his private beliefs, but private beliefs are beyond our discernment. We do him no favor by confirming him in that conflicted position.
It is manifestly evident that a congregation's membership in the LCMS is virtually irrelevant today. The preaching, teaching, and administration of the sacraments in that congregation are what determine it's public confession. Perhaps it's time we began to look to those marks of the church to see to it that "those who are proven might be manifest among us."
Again, let me reiterate that I wouldn't suggest immediate withdrawal from fellowship, but rather giving this process time for those in error to be duly recognized, admonished, and hopefully repent.
I really think this is exactly the type of thing Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians about their divisions and the purpose God desires those divisions to be put to. The primary goal is reconciliation through seeing that "those who are proven might be manifest among us."
I fervently pray that God may bring about such true unity among us, and put an end to the false unity claimed by our corporate synodical leadership.
Let me flesh this out a little further. I may be wrong, but it seems this answer fails to make a distinction between a person's public confession and his private beliefs. I was specifically talking about PUBLIC confession, not trying to search out one's private beliefs.
With individuals, we can never know for certain their private beliefs. We can only go on what their public confession is. Likewise, with a congregation, the ONLY thing we EVER have is a public confession.
I disagree. We know an individual's personal beliefs by his or her personal confession, which may differ from the corporate confession of that person's congregation. As I said, people tend to be stubbornly ignorant and inconsistent.
This is precisely the same point we make of congregations. Their fellowship associations with a church body are part of their public confession, but their preaching, teaching, and practice are a stronger statement.
The same is true of the individual. Their personal confession is a stronger statement of what they believe than their church membership. And it it known precisely by what the confess with their mouths.
We agree that a denominationally closed communion is meaningless when the denomination no longer holds to its denominator, that is, it's distinctives.
We agree that every effort must be expended before we break fellowship ties. I note that the so-called "antichrists" (ie the false teachers who followed Cerinthus) voluntarily withdrew from fellowship in Ephesus "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us."(1 John 2:19)
I find that when the Lutheran distinctives are clearly set forth in practice, people who do not confess them withdraw on their own.
Erich,
I don't know what part of the country you are from, but it seems maybe somewhere were you can find two or thrre Missouri Synod congregations on any given block, all not quite agreeing with eachother over whether one can where a chausable or not, and still be confessional.
But many Lutherans find themselves in less than desirable conditions. I once attended and joined a Missori synod congregation where I was told to shut up in Bible Study for reading 1 Tim 2:12 when the topic of Women's ordination came up. But what do you do? Even if there was a more solid church down the road (which there wasn't) I think I may have stayed on for quite sometime as a voice of protest. I don't know if that would be right or wrong.
But two, how practical is it to base it on the individual congregations preaching and teaching. It is kind of hard for us pastors to get out and about on Sunday morning to find out what every missouri congregation in the country is preaching. There may be some we know about on either side, but those are exceptions, not the rule. At some point you have to trust that the people infront of you are who they say they are, Missouri Lutherans, and deal with any misconceptions as they come up. We can't go punishing laymen because there pastor went south, or they got a candidate who was a poor student.
your Brother in Christ,
Bror Erickson,
(who has forgotten his google password)
Pr. Cwirla,
I think you're disagreeing with something I didn't say (i.e. a strawman).
Let's make these distinctions:
1. With an individual we have the following:
a. Public confession of beliefs by virtue of church membership.
b. Public confession of beliefs contrary to that church membership (not many people actually make a public confession of belief other than that implied by church membership - and rarely in contradiction to it).
c. Private confession of beliefs contrary to church membership (known only to those private individals to whom these beliefs are revealed) - by nature not a public confession.
d. Private beliefs unknown to anyone by virtue of being private.
Now, the issue at hand in this discussion is that "those who are proven might be manifest among you."
Therefore, c and d above are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not deny that c and d exist. Just that they have no bearing on what is manifest (i.e. publicly known).
When a person makes manifest (public) a confession of beliefs in contradiction to that of his congregation (item "b" above), he should at some point no longer be considered by his congregation to be in fellowship with them, or remove himself from fellowship - joining an orthodox Lutheran congregation instead.**
This is how, speaking about individuals, "those who are proven might be manifest among you."
With regard to congregations, I think we agree.
** Pr. Erickson's example of an individual who finds himself in an area where there is no orthodox congregation is a point which I will address in a separate comment.
Pr. Erickson,
The issue I'm speaking about here is strictly about essential doctrine - not about adiaphora like chausables. And, for what it's worth, I'm in south-central lower Michigan.
As for those Lutheran individuals who find themselves in less than desirable conditions where they do not have the option of attending an orthodox Lutheran congregation, the point of this conversation is obviously moot. I am talking primarily about what an orthodox congregation should do when it finds itself in close proximity to other LCMS congregations which are heterodox. If one agrees with Pr. Basely's suggestion, this is an issue to address within circuits. The diaspora of orthodox individuals is a different question.
But I also must address this statement of yours:
"At some point you have to trust that the people in front of you are who they say they are, Missouri Lutherans..."
That's precisely the problem. Saying you're a "Missouri Lutheran" doesn't mean much of anything anymore! There are too many LCMS congregations out there who do not discern the Lord's body in the Sacrament and therefore do not teach their members to do so. And if a person does not discern the Lord's body in the Sacrament you are giving him medicine which which is most certainly to his harm and has the potential to kill him.
Erich,
Thanks for the clarification. Believe me I am not in a state of denial over the doctrinal divides within the Missouri Synod. And I don't want to make light of it either, but I'm guessing in south cental Michigan you have pastors fighting over chausables, when they are not fighting over more serious things.
Bror Erickson
And I know Missouri doesn't always mean a hole lot. I fresh out of seminary had a person come visit my church from Twin Falls Idaho, recently moved into town, and was Missouri Lutheran, a week later she joined the Pentecostals down the street. I thought about making the drive to Twin Falls to have it out with her former pastor. But she communed even after I read the longest communion statement I've seen anywhere, clarifying in no uncertain terms what our position is, from the Altar. In many ways this is the cross of the pastor, we can't know. We can catechize and that is it. However, when people show up here, saying they are a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that they know what that means. At least until I make a visit with them later that week.
Pr. Erickson,
I know of no pastors fighting over chausables in south-central lower Michigan. I know over a couple dozen of the pastors in this region, and we speak frankly about things. I think I'd know if there were any such battles over adiaphora going on.
Erich,
that's too bad, i would like to think somewhere lutheran pastors have the luxuary to argue over those things.
Erich - No straw man involved. To prove a straw man fallacy, one must demonstrate that a position was misrepresented. I disagree with your revision of your original statement as well.
I do not agree with your distinction of an individual's "public" and "private" or personal confession. Unless by "private" you mean "secret" in which case it isn't a confession at all.
I can easily determine a person's personal confession by asking the right questions. As you believe with the heart, so you confess with the lips (Rom 10:10).
Your point might be better served if you used the distinction "corporate" and "individual." Ideally, one's corporate confession should be identical to one's individual confession, but as Pr. Erickson point out, that isn't always possible.
Point of fact:
People are admitted to membership in the LCMS based on their knowledge of the Small Catechism. They may or may not be aware of all the articles of doctrine in the Book of Concord.
As confessing Lutherans in the LCMS, we also have the Brief Statement of 1932 and other doctrinal statements which add to and interpret the Book of Concord. My guess is that these are not likely topics for discussion in catechism class.
Therefore, an individual's confession may or may not align perfectly with the corporate confession of the congregation or the LCMS.
Oh, they have the luxury of discussing chausables, but there's no reason to argue or fight about them.
It's certainly off-topic, but my pastor uses a chausable that goes with our new beautiful white paraments - all made in honor of our congregation's 150th anniversary by a very talented parishoner. That's the only chausable we currently have, so it works out that it is only used when the white paraments are used. That's kind of neat, because it signals there is something extra special about the day or season in which it is used.
In any case, such things are nothing to fight about.
Pr. Cwirla,
You wrote: I do not agree with your distinction of an individual's "public" and "private" or personal confession. Unless by "private" you mean "secret" in which case it isn't a confession at all.
Well, yes, that is what I mean. Private = secret. A private statement of belief is a confession of belief, though not a public one.
You also wrote: People are admitted to membership in the LCMS based on their knowledge of the Small Catechism.
Correction: People SHOULD BE admitted to membership in the LCMS based on their knowledge of the Small Catechism. It is naïve to assume that all congregations follow this practice. This is a big part of the problem. Many congregations do not even instruct their members in the Small Catechism.
You also write: They may or may not be aware of all the articles of doctrine in the Book of Concord.
Very true, of course. And if anyone, including a pastor, thinks he has mastered all of the teachings of the Book of Concord he is sorely mistaken.
But, if anyone publicly confesses something in contradiction to essential Confessional doctrine, he should be taught. And if he still continues in error after being catechized on that issue, he should be admonished, and at some point removed from fellowship.
One should confess upon membership in an LCMS congregation that he agrees with the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as known to him at that point, which should be at least the Small Catechism. His intent should be to grow in knowledge of the teachings of Scripture as taught in our church.
One does not have the liberty to choose to believe only the limited words of the Small Catechism at the expense of the greater body of doctrine confessed by the church. We are responsible as Christians to confess the whole counsel of God as it is known to us.
Erich - Ever think of starting your own blog? They are free, you know.
I've got one, thanks. ;-) No, wait a minute, I've got three! Here are numbers two and three.
I was also part of the once famous "Beggars All" blogging trio. Beggars All was Pr. Wilken's "favorite blog" according to his own testimony on Issues, Etc. That blog got too popular for our own good, and we pulled the plug.
...by the way, I got the hint. I'll shut up now. My point has been made abundantly clear. Thanks for helping me flesh it out.
No hint intended. Your cup just seemeth to runneth over.
Of blogging there is no end. Yeah, nothing kills a blog like popularity, which is something I've never had to worry about.
My real question is: Where do you find the time to plug molars?
I have a question about the quote given early on in the comments:
"Those who are aware of the partial apostasy of the church fellowship to which they belong and yet continue to remain within that fellowship are not to be considered among the weak but are either the lukewarm whom the Lord will spit out of his mouth or Epicurean religious sceptics who within their hearts would ask with Pilate, 'What is truth?'"
THESIS VI ON COMMUNION FELLOWSHIP
WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY
C. F. W. WALTHER, 1871
Some of the early comments seemed to read "church fellowship" as applying to denomination rather than congregation alone. In which case not only would an individual be required, upon threat of damnation, to leave a heterodox congregation, but a whole congregation would be required to leave a heterodox church body. In fact, it might be argued that that reading would require an individual to leave an otherwise orthodox congregation if it remained in fellowship with a body of questionable orthodoxy.
I would also like to see more on what Erich is asking about how "those who are proven might be manifest among us." I think the question is important. His reading seems to be, if I read it correctly (and maybe I don't), that these divisions make the truth manifest so that a layman can decide which group to trust. Before the division, those who are not to be trusted perhaps gain credence from their association with the trustworthy. At the split, one side is clearly wrong, and the alignments make the truth more visible. Or something like that. Which dynamic most of us have seen, whether or not this is what this text has in view. And he sees the overseers as having a role in this.
I also have to wonder whether the divisions Paul has in view assume that the orthodox leave. We have an example of the opposite in 1 John 2:19. In fact, the word "apostasy" itself applies most literally to a situation like that.
His reading seems to be, if I read it correctly (and maybe I don't), that these divisions make the truth manifest so that a layman can decide which group to trust.
I think this is essentially correct. What Paul seems to be saying is that divisions are necessary to clarify the matters sufficiently to bring the light of truth against which people can be tested. At least, this is how I understand it.
While the apostle certainly counsels avoidance of false teachers and those who cause divisions, I can't think of a single instance where St. Paul advocates leaving a congregation. (The concept of a larger "church body" comes later.) As you note, there are instances in the NT of apostates leaving.
The pattern of church history also seems to be that the heretics and schismatics are the ones who leave as the "pure ones" (Donatists, Novationists, Cathari). Luther, on the other hand, was excommunicated, which is vastly different than leaving on one's own. It's rather remarkable what Luther and the Lutherans were willing to tolerate so long as the Gospel remained intact.
In my experience, those who despise orthodoxy really don't want anything to do with it. Sooner or later it becomes apparant to all that there is no fellowship. I know people who will not worship where there is a "traditional element" present such as the Creed or even the Our Father. They have pretty much excluded themselves.
Walther's theses on church fellowship are fraught with difficulties as they are derived from his concept of an "invisible church" and a "true visible church on earth." His concept of church fellowship is heavily influenced by the 19th century confessional revival as well as his difficulties with other Lutherans already in America.
Pr. Cwirla,
The molars are easy. It's raising our seven children in the Lord that takes up most of my time. But happy is the man whose quiver is full of baptized children. :-)
Yes, my cup runneth over. But honestly, as for the blogging, I'm just a fast typist. ;-)
Solarblogger,
I think you understand my point well. It's divisions that never divide that give the Devil pleasure.
But honestly, as for the blogging, I'm just a fast typist. ;-)
As one who types 90 or so words per minute, I know firsthand what a problem that can be.
Erich, the Scripture is very relevant, but also your note that this is speaking to a Congregation and a Synod, but first and foremost to EVERY MEMBER.
The factions within Corinth were to be recognized and that means the individuals were either recognized as brothers (approved) or not. And on what basis?
Judgment. vs. 31 in 1 Corinthians 31, there is a corporate activity of judging ourselves, lest we be judged, and this extends from v. 28 "let a man examine HIMSELF."
Faith is made visible not be perfection, for we are all sinners and are saved by GRACE, but this faith is made known by self judgement. We recognize ourselves as Christians by self-judgement as the Law condemns us and we eat and drink of Christ's grace.
The dissapproved are those who justify their sins in self-righteousness. They are revealed as not being brothers and must be warned and eventually disciplined for rejecting the Gospel.
Thus what happens in the individual Christian, is true of the whole Congregation, is true (recognized in other congregations) of a Synod.
The church is invisible because their are hypocrites who act as if they judge themselves but don't. But their is a visible inside and outside of the church based on this judgement of open and manifest sinners, versus believers, and hypocrites, so long as they put on a good act! And this visibility is centered on Holy Commmunion which is Christ's Gospel and means of Sanctification to those of faith, and his judgement who eat without faith.
Post a Comment