Melanchthon on "adiaphoristic rituals"

Since we're talking about "adiaphora" at the moment, here is a very pertinent section from Melanchthon's Loci Communes, "Locus 21: Human Ceremonies in the Church," p.232-233. For as much as I would like to write an article on this subject, I have no time for it this week. I'll let Master Philip's words stand on their own, with a few highlighted phrases that caught my attention. Comments are welcome.

*****************************************************************************

Now that we have pointed out the errors which are inherent in these traditions and have condemned them, I will say what we should believe regarding these adiaphoristic rituals, which ones should be preserved in the churches of the Reformation, and which errors should be removed.

The third rule. In the churches which have been reformed, some rituals which are matters of adiaphora do remain, because in this life our actions have to be arranged in some kind of order. The nature of men understands and loves order, and it is particularly appropriate for the church and gatherings of people. Thus Paul very earnestly says in 1 Cor. 14[:40], “Let all things be done properly and in order.” He demands not only order but a particular care for adorning this order, and thus he adds “properly” in order that we may see what is appropriate for the persons, the places, and the times. There is more need for reverence in churches than in the theater. The action and the speaking of those who teach is more dignified and serious in the divinely called meeting at which Christ and the angels are present than on the stage.

Thus I say that the rites which are matters of adiaphora in the churches which have been reformed should be preserved for the sake of good order, but not added because of the notion of righteousness, worship, necessity, or in support of other errors which I have mentioned above. And we need to keep in mind that except for the matter of offense there is no sin in violating these traditions. Now I shall mention shortly what offenses we must avoid.

Gerson has sought out a great variety of necessary traditions. He sees that this enormous burden is a bloody torment for the consciences of right-minded men, and that on the other hand men who are less able to bear the burdens of the laws adopt an Epicurean contempt for all religion, since they cannot observe too many traditions. Therefore, he establishes grades of traditions. Some, he says, are established for the sake of outward beauty, and others for the sake of necessity. But the mitigations of Gerson do not unburden consciences. The divine authority lightens them by the Word given us through the apostles, which expressly rejects the notion of righteousness and necessity. And public tranquility will again be strengthened by this doctrine: we say that these rites which have been set forth for the sake of good order must be observed for the sake of propriety, and that stubborn men are indeed sinning when they disregard such rituals and give offense in the churches of the Reformation. This is the true necessity of traditions which also unburdens consciences and is useful for maintaining peace.

Some men are by nature savage, and they regard all laws as hateful prisons. It is certainly beneficial to instruct such people regarding the purpose of the law, namely, good order. And we should exhort them to avoid offense and understand that they do not live only for themselves but also for others—indeed, for the church of God.

Others are more placid by nature and more concerned about the feelings of others, and understand that they are born for society. Indeed, they perceive that their chief task is to be eager to help and promote the church. Of their own will, they do observe honorable and useful rituals and avoid offenses. They realize that the public worship services of the church have been established by the special counsel and blessing of God, and that God wills that these services be held frequently, so that the Word of the Gospel may be proclaimed publicly in the land. Such people are eager to maintain good order, tranquility, and reverence in the gatherings of the churches and in the schools, especially since order is conducive for teaching the uneducated multitude, so long as a lengthy series of feast days is not rashly created. For not all the accounts can be recited in one day, and it is better to delay part of the lesson until later. And when the division of time is congruent with the events which are taking place, it will not be more pleasant, but it still will be better for the memory.

Not only should men observe a definite series of days, but also God Himself has preserved in the Old and the New Testaments an order of festival days to observe His marvelous deeds. Just as He willed that a lamb be sacrificed at the beginning of spring, at the same time of year our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and raised again. Just as on the fiftieth day after the departure from Egypt the law was promulgated with public testimony from Mount Sinai, so on the fiftieth day after the Passover by manifest testimony the Holy Spirit was given.

Now we are in the 1,544th year after the birth of Christ. Therefore God Himself and our Lord Jesus Christ and the prophets and the whole church of God, from the Exodus from Egypt to this very year, have attributed to the days of Passover and Pentecost certain sacred activities for 3,049 years. A man who looks at this consensus between God and the church and at these examples, unless he is a one-eyed cyclops, will judge that it is an honorable thing to gather together before God and the everlasting church, and he will consider that he is present as a spectator of those events by which God in those times signified something very important. Indeed, we ought to regard these public gatherings as a beautiful image of our eternal relationship with God, with Christ, and with the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and other godly men. Such rituals are useful when they are observed in this way without superstition, and they are beneficial for teaching. For where there is no order, no discipline, it is impossible to teach people. And it is necessary that the Gospel be heard and taught. For God does not gather His church in any other way than through the preaching of the Gospel, and we should not even consider a church of the elect except in this visible assembly in which the Gospel is rightly and purely taught. Therefore, this visible assembly is to be loved and cared for, and the ministry of the Gospel must be retained and honorable gatherings must be held. For this purpose there is constant need for order and proper rites.

A More Definitive Definition of Adiaphora

I venture to say that the current definition of "adiaphora" under which we have been working is somewhat inadequate and deficient. It simply is not serving us or these discussions well enough.

Most of us have learned the definition of adiaphora as "things neither commanded nor forbidden by God." However, such a definition does not really capture the original intent and meaning of the term, nor is it entirely useful for the practical everyday use of the Believer.

First of all, the word is not found anywhere in the Bible. But the original term did have an ethical or moral quality that is often missed. The word literally means "things indifferent," and originally indicated a group of actions that were morally neutral, that is, neither good nor bad in and of themselves. It is this moral sense that is usually missing from discussions of adiaphora today. Therefore, in order for some activity to be truly adiaphora and thus within the options for a Believer, it cannot have or lead to moral or we might say eternal consequences. With this established, we may proceed to build a better, more useful definition of adiaphora.

Now, for the Believer, any action is either good or bad, moral or immoral, only in relation to the perfect, unchangeable will of God for all people, in all places, and of all times. Obviously, actions such as rejecting Christ as Savior, and not keeping the Commandments are bad, evil, and wrong because they go against God's revealed will for all mankind. In addition, Scripture teaches us that the general overriding desire of God for humanity is that every individual be saved and go to heaven. (First Timothy 2:4) So, naturally God's will revolves around bringing souls to faith and thus salvation. This then also becomes the will and desire of the Believer. Thus, this is the basis for what Paul writes in First Corinthians 8:1-9:23; Gal. 2:3-5; and Col. 2:16-20. In these words we find nothing less than a guide to what actions, that at first might seem to be indifferent, but in reality could present an impediment to saving faith. Since saving faith comes only from contact with the Gospel, and that can happen only through the Means of Grace in Word and Sacraments, whatever gets in the way of these Means of Grace cannot be adiaphora.

Since we are talking mostly about worship services, at this point we can ask what kinds of actions in a worship service support the Means of Grace and which detract from them. Certainly, I think all would have to admit that things such a public confession of sins and absolution, the reading and exposition of Scripture, and the Lord's Supper not only support the Means of Grace, but actually deliver God grace! In addition, a Gloria Patri, Gloria in excelsis, Agnus Dei, Sanctus, Nunc Dimitus, along with prayers, Psalms, and solid Biblical hymns can and do support the delivery of the Means of Grace.

By the same token, a worship service without a public confession/absolution, without the reading of Scripture, without a Scripture-based sermon, and without the Lord's Supper is a much poorer vehicle for the delivery of the Gospel through the Means of Grace. In addition, if such a worship service is also centered around satisfying the emotional feelings of people, the message focused on meeting their felt needs, the Means of Grace are not being delivered at all. The Solid Declaration puts it this way:

Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. (SD X, 7)

There is still another consideration.

The second part of a good working definition for adiaphora comes from the history of the Lutheran Church, and an important section in the Formula of Concord. Here a brief review would be in order. After Luther's death, his close friend and associate, Philip Melanchthon, sought to protect the new Lutheran faith in Germany by making certain concessions to the Roman church. He felt that, as long as Lutherans were allowed to preach and teach the main doctrines of Luther, they could and should once again accept the authority of the Pope and his bishops over their churches, also the restoration of certain portions of the Mass once objected to and removed by Luther, and the necessity of doing good works as part of salvation, among other things. He was opposed by Illyricus Flacius, who took the position that any time any practice or belief is forced upon Believers, or even just taught as necessary for salvation by any who are in any way shown to be false teachers, such matters cease to be adiaphora, and indeed must be opposed. . (FC, Article X) More simply put, matters that are under controversy cannot really be adiaphora.

So, our expanded definition for adiaphora would now run something like this: "adiaphora are those things which do not in any way provide the possibility of impeding or hindering the proclamation of the Gospel, or anything NOT under controversy, that is, insisted upon as good, right, and even necessary for salvation, when in fact they actually cause opposition to the Gospel or provide temptation to sin."

Thus, real adiaphora would be, by this definition, anything not worth fighting about, or that isn't being fought over! That would eliminate a lot of what is called adiaphora today, wouldn't it!?

And that's just the point – If we're fighting about it, it's not adiaphora! Therefore, whatever it is, it needs to be discussed and debated, some kind of real agreement reached, and the controversy ended.

To recap:

Worded negatively – Something that is detrimental to the Gospel, or under controversy, cannot be adiaphora.

Worded positively – Only what is in no way detrimental to the Gospel, or not at all controversial, is adiaphora.

Now, we can continue our discussions with a renewed understanding of what is and what isn't adiaphora!


Pastor Spencer

Change or Die - Issues, Etc. Comments

We have very little to report so far on the Change or Die conference that took place on Thursday. We were told earlier in the week that Pastor Skorzewski had decided not to participate, for which we were glad. We are working under the assumption that Pastor Jeske did participate, as advertised, although we would be happy to learn otherwise.

Our post of two weeks ago was picked up by Issues, Etc. and was chosen as one of their two picks for Blog of the Week. They found the "Change or Die" concept to be as offensive and unbiblical as we did.

Just yesterday, Issues, Etc. commented again on the Change or Die conference in response to an e-mail they received from a pastor who attended it. What follows is a transcript of their commentary. (Listener E-mail and Issues, Etc. Comment Line, 30:30-34:35)

Jeff Schwarz: Here’s an e-mail we just received in the studio here,

I’m a former ELCA pastor now called to an independent Lutheran congregation in southern Minnesota. And I attended the Change or Die conference Yesterday, March 10th. This was supposed to be a pan-Lutheran event, however, one presenter pulled out due to pressure from the WELS leadership.

Sadly the event lived up to Pr. Wilken’s suspicions as he mentioned in blog of the week recently. Two presenters from the ELCA promoted their liberation and social gospel theology, nothing new here so I don’t know how this was seen as new and relevant.

What surprised me were the two LCMS presenters who proudly demonstrated how they worked outside of the orthodox understanding of the Lutheran Confessions. When I challenged one of these presenters during a small group discussion concerning his definition of “church,” which was not about the Word of God properly preached and the Sacraments properly administered from his point of view, he removed himself from the conversation.

The other LCMS presenter openly advocated the removal of confirmation instruction (I’ve heard this in the ELCA several times in the past) and insisted that the seekers who come to the second preaching point of his ministry were not ready to attend worship at the primary worship site which is a classic Midwestern church building and liturgy. He did not say why, and in keeping with the 8th Commandment, I will not speculate. The best part of this free conference was the fine dinner sponsored by two external organizations who sponsored the event. I guess you get what you pay for. I appreciate your work, and yes, Todd, you were right, sometimes others can do a great job in demonstrating what not to do,

writes Kerry in Minnesota.

Todd Wilken: Well, Kerry, thank you very much, and look, change is change. And when the attitude is “we must change or die, that the Church’s life, the Church’s ongoing life and existence depends not upon the living Christ present in his Word and his Sacraments, but upon our ability to change,” usually change with the times, which is just another way of saying, “Let’s let the culture call the shots.” Right? “Let’s just let the culture tell us what is relevant, what we should be talking about. The audience is sovereign,” all this kind of George Barna nonsense.

When change is the essence of the Church’s existence, then you have no stopping point. When you believe that the Church can only continue to exist if it continues to change, you have absolutely no boundary to limit what you will change. So, old definition of the Church? Sure it’s in the Lutheran Confessions, and sure we call ourselves “Lutheran.” I mean, what does that mean? We drink beer and wear Lederhosen and we talk to each other in German occasionally. That’s why we’re Lutheran, come on! The Confessions, what are you talking about? Definition of the Church? That needs to change, too.

And what dictates the change? The Word of God? No. Any faithful confession, be it Lutheran or otherwise? No. What dictates the change? Well, it’s going to be one of two things, isn’t it? It’s going to be our own imagination or opinion, or it’s going to be someone else’s imagination or opinion, neither of which are, well, solid ground upon which to build the Church.

And remember what I said when I talked about this in blog of the week. Jesus says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” – Peter’s confession! – “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” But if you build – well, you can call it a “church,” I don’t know what it is, — when you build upon change, when you build upon your own imagination or opinion, then that promise does not prevail.

What I’d like to see is a conference called “Change AND die.”

The 'Tone' of polemics: Thoughts regarding vigorous public discourse

Polemics and Pedagogics
As I’m sure our readers have noticed, the position on which we publicly stand, and the nature of raising critical issues of doctrine and practice in a way that can’t help but warn of eroding integrity in our Synod’s claims of unity and in its confessional character, require us to be not only pedagogical – and even pedantic at times – it also requires us to wax polemical on occasion. Polemics is an art. It is a use of language that is intended to jar the reader, even upset the reader, for the purpose of pointing out the serious and critical nature of the issue being raised. It is the equivalent of grabbing one by the lapels and shouting at them, not out of anger but out of love and concern for the individual one is communicating with, and out of deep love for and dedication to the Truth. This concern for the Truth and the ultimate welfare of the individual far, far, overshadows any concern one may have for their immediate feelings, whether they may feel as if that one is doing the loving thing at the moment or not. In choosing to use polemic as we have, we are convinced that we are doing the loving thing, regardless of how others may feel about it (and for most of us, it was this same type of ‘jarring’ that woke us up to reality). We fully realize that the winds of popular opinion blow contrary the use of polemics. Nevertheless, we have decided that polemics – balanced by pedagogical presentation of the issues – is the proper, confessional use of language that we should make, given the situation(s) we are facing. We will continue to express ourselves in this way, until we are convinced that matters have improved, or that there is sufficient mutual concern across our Synod to suggest that further “shaking by the lapels” is not necessary. In this regard, we take our cue from our Lutheran predecessors in whom the spirit of confessionalism burned white-hot, from the likes of Walther, Pieper, Chemnitz, Luther, and even the soft-hearted Melanchthon – if one considers his polemic against the silly Roman "asses" who neither knew the etymology of the term ‘liturgy,’ nor knew any grammar (AP XXIV:78-88).

There are a couple things that the concerned reader should know about us, however. First, most, if not all of us, have been fighting these kinds of battles, or personally working through these issues, for well over a decade. As a former pop-church Evangelical, I myself know the errors of Church Growth from the inside out, having at one time been a fully committed Evangelical, having thought their thoughts, spoken their words, and believed their ‘doctrine’. Once I began to question Church Growth (along with many other Evangelicals who are very critical of it), and began to see that its foundation lies in anthropocentric institutionalism, I was led to contemplate the theology that permitted this ideology to have such a gripping authority in today’s pop-church. Deep consideration of these issues is what brought me to the only theological system which successfully avoids man’s participation in God’s work, which is founded on the teaching of the apostles, and which, through its catholic practice, demonstrates unity with true believers spanning all times and places: confessional Lutheranism. When I joined the WELS many years ago, my wife and I, with the encouragement of the orthodox and confessional Lutheran pastor who catechized us, and on the basis of pure scripture doctrine and the practice which proceeds from it, followed through on our new confession, visiting with our friends and our families, and confronting the ministries with which we had long associated, and where necessary (which, in most cases, it was), declaring separation from them.

In a sense, one can sympathize with the Reformed Evangelicals, whether of Calvinist or Arminian stripe, given that they have very little theological framework which would protect them from the allure of Church Growth theories. Confessional Lutherans, on the other hand, have no excuse whatsoever. The only way these ideas can be accommodated by Lutherans is if they discard or relax their commitment to some portion of their rigorous, full and orthodox theology, particularly that of the Means of Grace, the Marks of the Church, and of the Holy Ministry – not to mention Church Fellowship. That Church Growth has been accommodated by confessional Lutherans, and that propaganda continues to be issued in favor of it, is a matter of grave concern. We know it. We see the issues quite clearly. And given our experience with these false ideologies, there is little in terms of substantive argumentation Church Growth advocates can throw at us that we haven’t already fully considered and rehearsed, that we haven’t discussed personally and ad nauseum with fellow WELS Lutherans or with other Christians.

Second, Intrepid Lutherans is not ‘Church’. We don’t bear the Marks of the Church. We don’t commune one another, neither have we selected from among ourselves a ‘pastor’ or ‘overseer’. IL is strictly a Universal Priesthood endeavor – all five of us are equals. Nearly all of our posts are shared with one another for mutual approval, and in many cases blog articles are edited and/or enhanced by any number of us before they are published – even though a single author’s name may appear on them. Even some of our blog comments are shared among us for approval before posting. We stand together. And we’re prepared to fall together. Because of this, we regard any criticism of one of us to be criticism of all of us – which is fine if/when criticism is thought due. We don’t mind criticism (although we may grow weary of it from time to time...), nor would we discourage anyone from criticizing us. Specifically, we encourage those who are critical of us to have the courage to expose their criticisms to public review – to engage us publicly, even as we stand and speak publicly. If someone has a criticism of our public words and actions, then as Paul before Peter and the Elders, “withstand us to the face.” We’ll be happy to meet the challenge.

The other side of this is how we are wont to regard private criticism. It is a forgone conclusion that the loving, biblical and confessional response to ‘public error’ is ‘public rebuke’. We are on public record on this point, having developed a scriptural and confessional foundation for addressing public error in the blog post, The devil can quote Matthew 18, too – and we will have more to say on this point in the near future. Since our words and actions are public, we therefore expect to be engaged publicly if one considers them to be in error. Yet, some insist on privately contacting us to offer their criticism. Okay, fine. We’ll take that at face value and respond briefly to their concerns, encouraging them to express further concerns in the public forum provided for them. Usually this is enough. But we’ve been doing this awhile. Wolves have encircled us more than once. Singling out one or the other of us is a tactic used to ‘separate prey from the herd’, to make him vulnerable to attack. Either, one who is perceived as weak is singled out as easy prey in an effort to reduce our numbers, or, one who is perceived as leader is singled out as key to toppling IL altogether. This isn’t to imply that we suspect everyone who contacts us privately with concerns, or anyone for that matter, is intent upon doing this. Rather, it is to impress upon those who are intent upon shutting down Intrepid Lutherans, that we will not be separated or dealt with individually and privately for matters relating to words and actions we engage in together and in public. Critics, to be taken seriously, simply need to subject their concerns to the same public critique that we offer ours.

This has already gotten long, but there are a couple of points which come up frequently enough, that would benefit from some mild rebuttal. Those points concern the ‘tone’ of posts and commentary, and with identifying ‘motivations’ of those who express themselves publicly.

Obsession with ‘tone’ and ‘motivations’ is a characteristic of postmodernism
In the past several months, some have quite genuinely presented to us their concerns over ‘tone’ in some of the posts and commentary on our blog. Generally, our practice is to allow signed comments, which express complete thoughts in relation to the blog post or immediate commentary, even if one can find fault with the ‘tone.’ This practice is subject, of course, to our own sanctified judgment, as we clearly state in our “Rules of Engagement” guidelines. We realize that this automatically places this blog outside the comfort zone of those who prefer that public discourse among Christians be slathered with evangelical slobber. We don’t find that sort of expression to be at all necessary in this forum. Yet even within the guidelines we have published, our judgment is not always perfect, and some comments will be posted that we would normally hold back. Where this may have happened in the past, we trust that this has been the exception rather than the rule, and where individuals have expressed concern regarding ‘tone,’ be assured, we definitely take these concerns to heart, and strive to make changes where we think warranted.

In most cases, however, concerns of this sort are delivered to us in some form of analysis assigning ‘objective value’ to interpretations of ‘tone’, essentially identifying imperative statements as “unloving arrogance.” I’ll admit that grammatical analysis does make a critique of ‘tone’ sound objective, and while the grammar seems to be conclusive, any valuation of ‘tone’ – whether it be good or bad – is ultimately a matter of the reader’s subjective interpretation. It is not objective. Perceptions of ‘tone’, therefore, are often more of a ‘problem’ with the reader than with the author of such statements. To be sure, this is quite a serious problem. In fact, I would submit that readers or listeners who are so distracted by their own obsession with how they feel about another person’s expression, rather than with the content of that expression itself, are themselves displaying evidence of a self-centered disrespect for the author or speaker. It is sin. And this is not something I’m just making up, or some obscure point that few people have ever considered, but a basic tenet of objective critique that has been recognized for centuries.

Perhaps many readers of IL are too young to know what a real education is. Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know. But I do know that if I have a real education, I received it entirely by accident. By the time I started college, postmodernism was already the dominant worldview among the younger faculty, and the methods of social constructivism had begun to replace the long established classical and even modernist pedagogies. Yet, as an undergraduate and graduate student, I deliberately chose the most difficult and disliked professors I could find – since I was paying for my education, I wanted to get my money’s worth. Most of these professors were the old guys, the one’s who were mid-career already during the tumult of the ‘60s. They had a real education, and were doing what they could to pass it along, while all around them real education was disintegrating. What they taught their students about critique was very simple: one must make every effort to remove himself from the expression of others, and regard that expression only in terms of what the vessel of language – vocabulary and grammar – provides. If someone goes to the effort to give expression to his/her thoughts by composing words within a definite grammatical structure, then the only basis for properly understanding that expression is to interpret it on the basis of that composition, on the basis of objective rules of expression to which both the reader and the author agree. And this is the only basis on which one’s expression can be given due respect and consideration.

Postmodernism, as I’m sure the reader well-knows, has turned this completely on its head. According to the postmodernists, language is insufficient to carry the full meaning of an author’s or speaker’s expression, is insufficient to communicate any matter of truth with certainty. In order to more fully understand the expression of another person then, postmodernists insist that it must be understood from within the context of that person’s narrative. Hence today’s overriding obsession with a person’s motivations, and the life experiences that lie behind them, which lead to his manner of expression. These are prerequisite to understanding the content of his expression. But how does the listener or reader understand the narrative of another person? Through language? No – language, again, is insufficient. Rather, language needs to be complemented with other devices of communication. A person’s narrative needs to be received aurally, visually, tactilely – that is, experientially. Above all, however, it must be received socially. That is, the narrative of one person must be delivered to another person in the form of experience, and in this way received and incorporated into the narrative of the second person. Thus the two individuals are socially connected by shared narrative. And this represents the epistemology of postmodernism: knowledge is a social construction that is built as narrative is normalized across a given people group. Because of this, again, according to postmodernism, all ‘truth’ is also tenuous: (a) because social experience changes over time, the knowledge construct, or schemata, of a people group will also change, (b) because knowledge construction differs from one people group to another, and (c) because the means through which knowledge is constructed (i.e., through experience) is ultimately inconclusive with respect to what one may call ‘true’ anyway. Thus, no one could possibly be certain enough about anything to be imperative about it, and naturally, to be imperative about anything is to be ‘arrogant,’ as it is to regard any position as anything but ‘opinion.’ This is what it means to “understand motivations” in our postmodern age, especially when words are regarded as insufficient to evaluate another person’s expression. But be warned, dear reader, this philosophy is completely incompatible with the principle of confessionalism, and it is something against which we must struggle if we are to hold on to the Truth.

Apprehension, doubt, and self-censorship: Living under Law
Finally, it must be stated that living out one’s life in abject fear of ‘offending’ another person (and by ‘offense’ in this case, let’s be clear – we don’t mean ‘offense’ in the biblical and confessional sense, of violating someone’s conscience or leading them into sin – all that is really meant is ‘hurt feelings’), of being forced by others to constantly predict how a person may subjectively react to one’s own expression, and to censor one’s expression according to these worthless predictions, is a life under the impossible expectations of the Law. Further, if the expectation is that the expression of one’s conscience be self-censored to avoid the ‘hurt feelings’ of others, this expectation is itself true ‘offense’ in the biblical and confessional sense, being a violation of one’s conscience which forces one into habitually fraudulent self-representation. One is forced under these circumstances, to cover up what they really think and obscure who they really are in order to please those wagging the billy club of the Law above their heads.

No, it is best to allow and encourage people to honestly express themselves at all times, not to force them to constantly second-guess or question everything they might say for fear of hurting someone else’s feelings, or worse, out of fear that what they are convinced is true may really be error. This is neither the confidence nor the ardor of a confessor. The fact is, if a fellow Christian is guilty of error, it will be immediately evident in his expression and will be far more easily and directly dealt with, if he is expressing himself consistently with his character and convictions, than if he is coerced into hiding them through continually dishonest self-expression. At the same time, people ought to be encouraged to live a life of meditation on the Scriptures, and of self-reflection, so that if, after the fact, one can confess that a better course of action could have been taken, or that his thinking ought to be corrected, then that adjustment can be made voluntarily and permanently on his own.

Dealing with subjective concerns regarding 'tone': a sugggestion and advice for the 'offended'
One may complain that they are, nevertheless, subjectively concerned about ‘tone’. It may not sound like it, but I can appreciate that. My suggestion is this: instead of trying to change people to one’s own liking, one ought to endeavor to train oneself to objectively critique the expression of others, and to respond to that expression objectively, rather than become emotionally vested in his own subjective evaluations of ‘true intent or meaning’ which are based on his perceptions of ‘tone.’ As stated above, the practice we at Intrepid Lutherans have adopted is to exercise our own collective judgment in those posts we allow to be posted, but to generally allow folks to express their thoughts, even if one can find fault with the ‘tone’ – understanding that as we deal with the content of their expression, the tone will likely change anyway.

In closing, and for what it is worth, I’ll offer some advice in addition to my suggestion, by sharing a practice I try to follow as I take up issues in a public forum. First, remove yourself from your own commentary – that is remove, as much as possible, use of the terms “I” or “me”. While this does not prevent your commentary from being critiqued by others, it does help to keep yourself from becoming a part of their critique. Since you have not made yourself part of the subject of your own commentary, it will be difficult for others to legitimately make you the subject of their response. Second, remove reference to other people from your commentary – that is, remove names of people, as much as possible, and when responding directly to what someone has written on these pages, try to eliminate personal terms like “you” as you address the content of their expression. With these simple guidelines, I have found that, apart from cordial salutations, all that remains is discussion over the ideas at issue, and that it is sufficiently abstracted from myself and from the individuals engaged in the discussion that a direct and spirited exchange regarding the issues can be fruitfully had. One can rail up and down against the positions that others take, and it doesn’t become personal – nor does it need to become personal for the words to be persuasive. Thoughtful and genuine conversants will voluntarily apply the words of such dialogue to themselves as those words seem apt. Of course, it goes without saying, I am imperfect, and fail to take my own advice all too often (as those who know me personally will be quick to point out, I’m afraid!) – but I find that this practice tends, more than anything else, to contribute to civilized debate and is a standard worth pursuing.