The Queen James Bible: The next stage of "interpretive ambiguity"

Round and round and round it goes.
     Where it'll stop, who really knows?
          Or cares?

The strictures of gender-neutrality placed on the translation of the NIV 2011 superimpose a feminist worldview on the entire text of the Bible. But this is old news. The next controversial phase of attacks on God's Word is to superimpose a homosexual worldview on the Bible. How long will it be before confessional Lutherans join this movement? From the Product Description on Amazon:

A Gay Bible
The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.

Homosexuality in The Bible
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this - only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

Who is Queen James?
The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. It is the brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read. The KJV, as it is called, has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as "Queen James." It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so...

[bold emphasis is mine]

Are confessional Lutherans ready for this? It only changes eight verses. How could that be so bad? Some confessional Lutherans are more than ready, I'm sure, but my guess is, most are not. Give it time, though. That's the way change takes place. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, but little by little until new ideas take hold and become normative. Give it a couple decades or so for a more emancipated social consciousness to work its way into the leadership and schools of confessional Lutherans. Maybe then they'll be ready for a Bible such as "The Queen James Bible." For now, I am sure that the ELCA is ready to endorse it as a translation which can be used with "a high degree of confidence," and that should be good enough to encourage the beginning and continuation of changes elsewhere.

Cultural Change and the Church
As Koehler pointed out to us in defending the Historical Disciplines (see the Introduction to my Conference paper, Why is this Happening to Us?), the only way to tell that change has occurred and is impacting the Church is to examine the past:

The truth must remain unchanged but the method must vary in order always to remain the spontaneous expression of the truth. Today we are confronted by new situations... They can be covered with one term, the intrusion of worldly ways into the church... It won’t do to go into isolation and pretend that problems do not exist... But neither is anything accomplished by making compromises and bringing the world into the church... What counts is that we actually stay with the truth in doctrine and conduct and actually shut our church against worldliness. What is the remedy?... In our case it is the historical studies that indicate that a change is taking place, and it is highly important that we do not remain inactive and let it dominate us so that our church may not be harmed by it.

[Koehler, J.P. (1997). The Importance of the Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Present. In C. Jahn (Ed.), Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 3 (I. Habeck, Trans., 1975). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published in German, 1904). pp. 436 - 437]

But once harmful change has taken root, it's too late. It's probably too late to reverse many harmful changes hindsight has been revealing to us, especially since the resolution is to bring "clarity" to confusion, while the harmful changes we see often have their root in a love for the power and independence that "ambiguity" brings to the individual.

As I stated in my last post, How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?, it used to be that among confessional Lutherans, "all doctrine was taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only," – a grammatical definition – but now, "all doctrine is taken only from "clear statements" of Scripture" – a relative definition. It may seem like this sort of thing happens by accident. And maybe it does. But the strategic use of "ambiguity" is also a weapon, used by man to wage war against the clarity of the Scriptures. In fact, I concluded a previous post entitled, When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates..., which characterized the decline of sound doctrine in the ELCA as a decline in the perceived "clarity" of the Scriptures, with the phrase, "Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny," and used that phrase as the title of two successive posts:

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One
“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two

These posts briefly examine the debate between Erasmus and Luther in their works on Human Will (Freedom of the Will and Bondage of the Will respectively), and focus on Erasmus' appeal to "the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture," characterizing such appeals as essentially the same sin of Satan himself – the sin of pride and of desiring equality with God (Ge. 3:1-19). Deliberately making wholesale changes to God's Word, even deliberately changing His Word in only eight places, to satisfy what seems to be laudable values of contemporary social consciousness, only vaunts ambiguity in Scripture in order to employ the freedom of man's arbitrative rights and obligations. Indeed, it often succeeds at inventing such ambiguity in the face of Scripture's clarity, in order that ambiguity can be claimed and strategically used to put man, and what man wants, in the place of God and what He says. This is a childish game played by man from a heart of sinful pride and a desirous love for freedom from Authority. And as the ELCA has amply demonstrated, ambiguity empowers this love, mightily.

Shall confessional Lutherans follow them?

The Theological Disciplines, and the nature of theological discourse in WELS from a layman's perspective

When Lutherans confess orthodox teaching, we are not merely confessing that we "believe and teach everything the Bible says." All Christians who confess their faith do this. Yet, Christians disagree regarding what the Bible specifically teaches, and not in inconsequential matters, either. This is what makes "Confessions of Faith" necessary. Rather than asking whether a Christian "believes everything the Bible says," a Confession answers the question, "What do you say the Bible says." And when others agree, without reservation, to such a Confession, they are said to share the same Confession.

Thus, when Lutherans confess orthodox teaching, we are confessing what we are convinced as a matter of conscience the Bible says – and not only that, what we are convinced that it teaches in the face of those who are convinced otherwise. Making such a Confession is not an insignificant matter; it is not a so poorly considered act that, as if by the mere "formality of agreement," we are finally able to enter into voting membership of an organization or receive some other temporal benefit. Instead, a genuine "Confession of Faith" reaches to the convictions of Christian conscience itself – it is a Truth upon which the confessor is willing to sacrifice his life.

Indeed, the term "confessor" is closely related to that of "martyr:" in the Early Church, during the Ten Persecutions, for instance, the confessor was the one who was subjected to all manner of torture and threatened with eventual death in order to secure a denial of his Confession, who nevertheless stood on his Confession; the martyr was the one who went on to meet the death he was assured of as confessor¹. Even today, our Lutheran hymnals hold catechumens to this very high standard of confessional subscription in the Rite of Confirmation, which requires them to answer in the affirmative, with the help of God, the following question:

"Do you also, as a member of the Evangelical Lutheran church, intend to continue steadfast in the confession of this Church, and suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?"²

To agree to a given Confession of Faith is not, nor has it ever been, considered an insignificant thing. Yet, at the time of the Ten Persecutions, it wasn't necessarily dogma for which Christians died, but the very facts of Christianity themselves.

Shortly after the Persecutions were ended by Constantine, the Ecumenical Creeds were adopted, as necessary for the separation of orthodox Christian teaching from heterodoxy. At the time of Luther, the Augsburg Confession was necessary to distinguish ourselves from the errors of Rome, and he did so with the certain prospect of his own martyrdom. Though he escaped martyrdom, many Reformation Lutherans wear that crown having met their death clinging to their Lutheran Confession. Today, we continue, necessarily, to hold this Confession in the face of Rome, in the same terms expressed by Luther and other Lutheran Confessors and Martyrs. At the time of Chemnitz, the Formula of Concord was necessary to distinguish orthodox teaching from the errors of the Crypto-Calvinists who had crept in among the Lutherans, and also from the excesses of some of the Gnesio-Lutherans, along with direct repudiation of Reformed errors which were being directed at us from outside Lutheranism. It is necessary to continue to do so – especially as some modern Lutherans seem to be enamoured with Calvinist and Arminian teaching and with the sectarian practices which descend from it. At the time of Johann Gerhard, the vigorous academic offensive mounted by the Jesuits as part of the Roman Catholic counter-Reformation, in addition to the development of rather rigorous Reformed systematic theology, required that a shift in theological expression occur in Lutheranism as well, from the form of confessional "exegetical theology" (the Loci of Melanchthon and Chemnitz considered by them to be an essentially historical theological discipline) to that of scholastic "systematic theology" (a constructive theological discipline)³. This Lutheran response precipitated the 17^th Century Lutheran "Age of Orthodoxy," prompting Dr. Philip Schaff, the renowned 19^th Century church historian, to characterize Lutheranism with the words, "The Lutheran Church is a Church of theologians, and has the most learning and the finest hymns"⁴. Yes, we still recite the words of our faithful theologians, almost verbatim – and it remains necessary for us to do so in order to maintain our distinction from errorists and to maintain pure doctrine.

Yet, some Lutherans so sufficiently doubt their confession that a "fresh look" at the Scriptures always seems necessary, and it certainly seems a mark of credibility among them to feign objectivity, as if their conscience and confession are disposable things. Such an attitude seems to be a result of embracing the historical theological disciplines while despising the constructive. But if one discovers that his "fresh look" results in the same thing Lutherans have always confessed, then how fresh is it, really? It isn't fresh at all, it's just an intellectual exercise in rejecting one's confession for the purpose of rediscovery – raising the question of whether his confession was made as a matter of conscience in the first place. If on the other hand, one discovers that his "fresh look" results in some teaching other than what Lutherans have always taught, then he ought to have the decency to count himself among those who do not apply the label "Lutheran" to themselves.

Some Lutherans, however, rest so securely in dogmatic formulations, the mere suggestion that re-examination may be in order – perhaps, among other reasons, because there is evidence that such formulations were not entirely in harmony with Scripture all along, or because such formulations are sufficiently lacking in context that they are misunderstood and misapplied today, or because new arguments against certain dogmatic positions require additional clarification of the doctrine – strikes so severely at their sense of security that they are prompted to suspicion and anger, and adamantly refuse to entertain any discussion on the matter. Such an attitude seems to be a result of embracing the constructive theological disciplines while despising the historical. It was this attitude which (necessarily) reigned in confessional Lutheranism during the 19^th Century in America, and it contributed to the rise of the more thoughtful approach of the Wauwatosa Theologians of the early Wisconsin Synod, whose purpose was not to overshadow or despise the constructive disciplines, but to bring them back into balance with the historical. As a result, it is said, a peculiar practice developed within WELS regarding the question of dogmatic concerns: when a Brother clergyman brought forward a dogmatic concern, his concern was taken seriously by his Fellows, and together they studied the issue.

This seems like a good idea – a practice which displays a healthy balance between historical and constructive disciplines and a genuinely conscientious effort to keep sound doctrine. In fact, one cause for my personal optimism upon first becoming involved with Intrepid Lutherans two years ago was the belief that this practice was alive, if not in every part of the WELS, then in at least some important quarters:

“Finally,” I thought, “a public platform upon which vitally important concerns can be voiced! Surely, at least those who naturally resonate with these concerns will now hear them, and these issues can finally get the respect of concerned attention!”

Apparently this belief was rather naïve. The fact is, to date, I can say that I've only heard of this practice. In the past two years I don't think I have ever witnessed it – if I did, it was unrecognizable to me – and I am now under the distinct impression that, at best, stories of such a practice are merely historical artifacts, passed on from person to person and distorted slightly with each retelling of them. Instead, while I have observed both theological disciplines used in WELS, I have not observed them used in a balanced or coordinated fashion. Rather, it seems that either one or the other is practiced, depending on its immediate utility. For example, as our detractors in other Synods are quick to point out, Wauwatosa seems to have devolved into a virtual abandonment of the constructive disciplines and of true Confessional ardor, as if in an attempt to reinvent the present through continuous "rediscovery." After all, such is an incredibly useful approach if one is looking to excuse incessant and "innovative" change – of the sort those beguiled by the Church Growth Movement demand, for instance – and this seems to be its most effective and frequent use among us. On the other hand, I have witnessed the bald application of "dogmatic formulas," quite apart from genuine discussion with the one raising the questions, and apart from seriously offering to study the issue together with the questioner, but instead with what seems to be cross-armed and set-jawed suspicion followed by authoritative and final demands that the questioner cease with his questions and recant immediately and fully, or forfeit the blessings of fellowship. In fact, we have all very recently witnessed horrific examples of this "non-evangelical use of dogma" (as Rev. J.P. Koehler seems to have described it⁵) play out before us in public, as such tactics have been employed by WELS pastors against laymen; and we are likely to see such occur again.

True confessional Lutherans conscientiously endeavor to believe, teach and confess as the church catholic always has. This catholic continuity requires an historical perspective in our doctrine and practice, just as peaceful unity in all matters of doctrine and practice requires that concerns regarding them be taken seriously.

Are there any more WELS pastors who resonate with our concerns over doctrine and practice, who are willing to put their name on a public call for examination of the matters of doctrine and practice which we at Intrepid Lutherans have attempted to articulate in our What we Believe page, and in three hundred blog posts over the past two years? Laymen? Time is rapidly growing short – so is our optimism.

Click here to Stand With Us.



------------
Endnotes:

1. For more information, see the Conclustion to the series of posts: "Relevance," and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs
   
2. For more information, see the Agenda to The Lutheran Hymnal: The Lutheran Agenda. (1946). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pg. 24
   
3. According to the Wauwatosa Theologian Rev. J.P. Koehler, the “historical theological disciplines” are historical and exegetical theology, while the “constructive theological disciplines” are systematic and practical theology. Please see the Introduction of my paper, Why is this happening to us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us, that was delivered at the 2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity, for more details.
   
4. Schaff, P. (1996). History of the Christian Church (Vol. 7, The German Reformation: The Beginning of the Protestant Reformation up to the Diet of Augsburg). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Reprinted from the second edition, originally published in 1888). pg. 26.
   
5. Koehler, J.P. (1997). The Importance of the Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Present. In C. Jahn (Ed.), Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 3 (I. Habeck, Trans., 1975). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published in German, 1904). pg. 436.