Thursday, June 10, 2010

Clarifying "What We Believe"

(A post-length reply to a comment requesting clarification of our What We Believe section)

Pastor Doerr,

Always keeping us on our toes!
”At this point I am not able to sign my name to the 'What We Believe,' as I feel it is not clear enough. Are there plans to make changes to the 'What We Believe' as requests for clarification come in? If so, what will happen to the signatures you have already received--will they be asked to re-sign? If there will not be changes, why not?”

You’ve stated both the solution and the problem, in that order. Yes, we would like to clarify anything that remains unclear on the What We Believe page, and would be happy to consider suggestions. This would, of course, become the Altered Intrepid Lutheran confession, and as you say, a number of people have already signed their names to the Unaltered Intrepid Lutheran confession, and I think we owe it to them not to alter things too quickly or ask them to re-subscribe too often. Perhaps we can take requests for clarification over a period of time, and after that time, if any changes are deemed necessary, we can contact our subscribers for their approval or disapproval.
”One specific example of a point that makes me uncomfortable is what I brought up in my only other comment, when I asked if it was the position of Intrepid Lutherans that a pastor or congregation be put under discipline simply for using something besides the liturgy. I am happy with the answer you gave me, which was ‘No,’ and with the explanation. However, I feel that the ‘What We Believe’ is not clear enough on this point. Others on this blog seem to think your answer would be ‘Yes.’ Still others seem to say your answer has to be ‘Yes’ or you aren't orthodox enough for them--(And I would confidently say that such a position is another way to promote disunity in our synod).Your ‘What We Believe’ as currently written can give the impression that Intrepid Lutherans might be in the crowd that says the Christian Worship hymnal isn't Lutheran enough. Since you aren't in that crowd, it would be good to distance yourselves from them, and the place to do that is on your ‘What We Believe’ page.”

I’m not convinced yet that the problem lies in the beliefs as stated. In fact, the specific belief I think people on the extreme end have pointed to is under the “Nevertheless” section that states, “That traditional ceremonies ‘ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquility and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like,’” which is a direct quote from the Augsburg Confession.

I don’t think the AC is unclear on this point. The fact that some people have, in their minds, inserted the meaning that ALL ceremonies MUST be observed WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OR ELSE IT’S INSPIRED BY SATAN is neither what we have said nor what the AC has said, nor is it consistent with the truly evangelical spirit of the Confessions.

I think that, if we need to distance ourselves from those positions, it will have to be in the things we ourselves say on the blog. Even the Confessions rely to some degree on the other writings of Dr. Luther as a clarification of their meaning. So if people want to give us time to make our position clearer before subscribing, we understand. But we do hope everyone will take a stand.
”I would also like to say that Benjamin Cruz's remarks struck a chord with me. The ‘blog’ format lends itself to promoting conversations, but the way comments end up scattered here and there under various articles and blog posts it seems hard to use a blog to build consensus on many topics. Maybe you already have a remedy in mind for this.”

It’s true that the blog format only allows discussion up to a point, and on specific threads. There’s nothing we can do about that. Two things: The blog has just begun, not even two weeks old. Some are already chomping at the bit for us to make all our points, address every issue and say everything that needs to be said in a handful of posts. But the issues before us are not sound-bite issues, nor will the answers come in sound-bite responses. And although we’re trying to keep things moving, the owners of this blog do still have full-time vocations to attend to, so we are simply unable to do everything at once.

Secondly, we have no delusions that this blog itself will be the great and glorious “consensus builder” across the synod. As we stated in our opening letter, we hope it will serve to start the discussion openly, because right now, many are still in denial that there is anything to discuss, and are rather upset with us for daring to state the obvious. Once we can bring ourselves to admit that there is a degree of disunity within our synod, it is our hope that the discussion can branch out from here and take place where it needs to: in homes, parishes, circuits, districts, and among the COP. And in the end we want more than discussion. We want solid theological conclusions, and true unity around those conclusions. We have set forth our own theological conclusions for all the world to evaluate and critique, and if necessary, correct. We would hope that those who disagree with us would do the same.
”Thank you for considering my comment and I look forward to your response.”

Thank you, Pastor Doerr, for engaging in the discussion in a brotherly way.

11 comments:

Christopher S. Doerr said...

Thank you for this well-written response. I intend to continue to follow this blog and I pray God will guide and bless your efforts.

Mr. Daniel Gorman said...

Pastor Doerr opines, "The fact that some people have, in their minds, inserted the meaning that ALL ceremonies MUST be observed WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OR ELSE IT’S INSPIRED BY SATAN is neither what we have said nor what the AC has said, nor is it consistent with the truly evangelical spirit of the Confessions."

I don't believe that "all ceremonies must be observed without the slightest change or modification." However, I do believe that "any use of our Christian freedom to introduce change into the Church must avoid all frivolity and offense." And, yes, all frivolous and/or offensive changes are inspired by Satan.

Some subscribers to "What We Believe" seem unwilling to accept the practical application of their own confession. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with "What We Believe" and its practical application regarding "use of our Christian freedom to introduce change" within the Church.

The weak and erroneous interpretation of "What We Believe" by certain subscribers does not deter me in the least from subscribing to the document. The pure doctrine of "What We Believe" is crystal clear and requires no amendment. The only reason I have not subscribed to "What We Believe" already is because I am not legible to subscribe. I am not associated with WELS (There is no WELS congregation or mission in Chattanooga).

Daniel Gorman said...

I made two errors in my above post. First, I ascribed an opinion of Rev. Rydecki to Pastor Doerr. "Pastor Doerr opines. . ." should have read "Rev. Rydecki opines. . ." Secondly, I misspelled "eligible" as "legible." My comment should have read, ". . .I am not eligible to subscribe." I apologize for the errors and I will try to be more careful in the future.

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Mr. Gorman,

First, thank you for clarifying where your statements are coming from. It didn't sound like they were coming from within the WELS.

It's one thing to disagree with changes that were made from, say, TLH to CW, or to question the wisdom of such changes. Neither the musical choices nor the liturgical choices made in forming Christian Worship were given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But to say that these changes (like the 20 changes you listed to the Common Service under the Explanation of the Common Service post) were inspired by Satan, or that they fit the Confessional definition of "frivolous and offensive" is a heavy charge, for which you have offered no defense. The burden is on you to prove such grave accusations.

Mr. Daniel Gorman said...

Rev. Rydecki opines, "First, thank you for clarifying where your statements are coming from. It didn't sound like they were coming from within the WELS."

I was a member of a WELS congregation during the 1990s. I hope and pray that a WELS congregation forms locally and that I may join it. There is no impediment to WELS membership on my part. I believe that "to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.”

Rev. Rydecki opines, "It's one thing to disagree with changes that were made from, say, TLH to CW, or to question the wisdom of such changes. Neither the musical choices nor the liturgical choices made in forming Christian Worship were given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

I have not objected to CW musical choices even when they were terrible. Pure liturgy is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rev. Rydecki opines, "But to say that these changes (like the 20 changes you listed to the Common Service under the Explanation of the Common Service post) were inspired by Satan, or that they fit the Confessional definition of "frivolous and offensive" is a heavy charge, for which you have offered no defense. The burden is on you to prove such grave accusations."

Why do you say the burden is on me? Your own confession states,
"That traditional ceremonies "ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquility and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like" (AC:XV).
That our freedom in matters not directly commanded or forbidden by God is not a license to do whatever one wishes, but rather it is a solemn responsibility from God to make choices that edify the whole Church of God (1 Cor. 14:26, FC:SD:X:9).
That any use of our Christian freedom to introduce change into the Church must avoid all frivolity and offense (FC:E:X:5).
That any use of our Christian freedom to introduce change into the Church must take our brothers into consideration and must not disrupt our unity as brothers (Eph. 4:3).
That the true unity of the Church is injured and the doctrine of the Gospel is perverted by those who abandon the liturgy of the Church catholic in favor of sectarian forms that divide Christians into groups based on age, culture or personal preference (1 Cor. 1:10-13).
That the true unity of the Church is injured and the doctrine of the Gospel is perverted by those who ape the enthusiastic, man-centered worship practices of the sects (2 Cor. 6:14, Mat. 7:16)."

It seems to me the burden is on you to prove that CW changes to the Common Service are necessary according to the criteria of "Nevertheless, we confess. . ."

Nevertheless, I am willing that to prove that each of the 20 CW changes to the Common Service are frivolous or offensive using the standard English dictionary definition of terms. Do you wish to start another thread for that purpose or should I use an existing thread?

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Mr. Gorman,

The burden is on you to prove such charges, because CW does use traditional ceremonies, and more importantly, traditional liturgical texts. The choices made in CW have served to edify the WELS for over 15 years by focusing us on Christ in word and in song. I find nothing frivolous or offensive in the rites of CW, according to the Confessional definition of these terms (an English dictionary will not treat the theological assumptions behind those terms, I'm afraid, so a proper definition will have to be derived from the historical context of the Confessions and from Scripture).

Furthermore, CW does not abandon the liturgy of the Church catholic in favor of sectarian forms that divide Christians up into groups based on preference, nor does it ape the enthusiastic practices of the sects.

So you can copy our own statement of beliefs all you want and pretend that you've mastered us by it, claiming it means something other than what it does, but simply making the claim does not prove your point.

Mr. Daniel Gorman said...

Rev. Rydecki,

So your confession "What We Believe" is not really something that the average Lutheran layman is qualified to evaluate? Only learned theologians like yourself who can derive proper definitions from the historical context of the Confessions and from Scripture (rather than from a standard dictionary) are qualified to judge "What We Believe"? Here's what Luther has to say on that subject:

"Human words and teaching instituted and decreed that only bishops, scholars, and councils should be allowed to judge doctrine. . .The ordinary Christian is supposed to await their judgment and obey it. Do you see how shamelessly and foolishly this boasting, with which they intimidated the whole world and which is their highest stronghold and defense, rages against God’s law and word? Christ institutes the very opposite. He takes both the right and the power to judge teaching from the bishops, scholars, and councils and gives them to everyone and to all Christians equally when he says, John 10[:4] , 'My sheep know my voice.'"

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Mr. Gorman,

It seems like you're here to argue more than to discuss. Yes, Mr. Gorman, you are expected to make your points based on the historical context of the Confessions and the Scriptural use of terms (which is not restricted to theologians). All the more so, because you have taken it upon yourself to call our WELS hymnal satanic in origin. Neither Merriam-Webster nor Wikipedia will suffice for this theological discussion. Sorry to disappoint.

Mr. Daniel Gorman said...

Rev. Rydecki opines, ". . .you have taken it upon yourself to call our WELS hymnal satanic in origin."

Here's what I actually opined, "Satan encouraged minor liturgical innovations (TLH, 1941) which, in turn, led to major innovations (LBW, 1978). . .And, yes, all frivolous and/or offensive changes are inspired by Satan."

And here's what the Smalcald Articles, Part III, Art. VIII, opine, "All this is the old devil and old serpent, who also converted Adam and Eve into enthusiasts, and led them from the outward Word of God to spiritualizing and self-conceit, and nevertheless he accomplished this through other outward words."

Are you prepared to testify before the judgment seat of Christ, as an Intrepid Lutheran, that the entire CW is pure doctrine and nothing in it was inspired by Satan? In the "Explanation of the Common Service" thread, I list 20 changes to the Common Service in CW that may be frivolous (i.e., having no sound basis) and/or offensive (i.e., causing resentment). See "Explanation of the Common Service" thread for individual evaluations which I will post as time permits.

AP said...

Mr. Gorman,

I'm not really sure this topic is the most fruitful of discussions, but your post raised some questions in my mind: What is "this" in the quote you cite from the Smalcald Articles? Obviously "this" does not refer to changes made from TLH to Christian Worship. Can you explain exactly what "this" is and how you think it is applicable? How is the Lutheran Book of Worship relevant to the discussion? It was never used in the WELS. The Missouri Synod also rejected it in favor of Lutheran Worship. Finally, can frivolity and offensiveness not also simply be inspired by human weakness on its own?

Dr. Aaron Palmer

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Yes, I agree that this is not the most fruitful topic of discussion. Mr. Gorman, you seem to be quoting randomly from the Confessions now. You have not shown how the devil has led the WELS away from the outward Word of God to seek him elsewhere, which is the context of your Luther quote. But in trying to prove that the minor liturgical changes you cite came from Satan, you had to find a Confessions passage with the word "devil" in it. This is not helpful.

Yes you listed minor changes to the Common Service, even the "frivolous" updating to present-day English. But your definitions are simply incorrect. "Frivolous" as used in the Confessions does not mean "having no sound basis," but is the translation of the Latin word "levitas," which is the opposite of "gravitas." It might be translated "lack of seriousness" or "lack of solemnity" or perhaps "silliness." It was applied to the pointless theatrics in parts of the Papal Mass, or ceremonies that were all for show. To apply this word to changes made to CW is simply inaccurate. Someone may argue that some of the changes were unnecessary or unwise, but that doesn't mean the devil was behind it.

And "offense" in Scripture and in the Confessions has nothing to do with the English definition "causing resentment." This is why I said that an English dictionary would not be sufficient for this discussion. An "offense" is a stumbling block to faith. Paul describes this type of offense in 1 Corinthians 8, especially in the context of concern for weak Christians.

More explanation will be given of these terms in future posts.

Post a Comment

Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of the moderators.

Since anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog, please sign your full name at the bottom of every comment, unless it already appears in your identity profile.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License