Every departure...from our Lord's mandate only introduces doubt. Beloved, let us not set stumbling blocks before the people of God! Let us rather abide by the mandated institution of our Lord and thus live from the certainty of His giving. Take bread and wine, bless them with His words in thanksgiving, and thus give out to His royal priesthood His body and blood, having tasted of them yourself. Take anything else, bless them with His words and give them out, and what do you give out? Neither you nor your people have the first clue! We mayn't suppose our Lord is bound to what He has not commanded.
I copied those words from my friend Pr Will Weedon. They illustrate a great principle which is behind faithful liturgical practice. As a Pastor I get questions all the time about allowing this or that deviation from normal practice. Whether the simple rites of a wedding or funeral or the divinely mandated elements of the Lord's Supper, we find ourselves under the gun to pick and choose, to adapt and respect the wishes and desires of people. It seems such a little thing to make exception or agree with changes or experiment here and there. Some are certainly of more importance than others. Why would we refuse such earnest requests for exception? In the end, Pr Weedon has it right. We must live from the certainty of His giving.... The point here is to be true to the Word and to our Confessions.
There are those who love to poke fun at the slow pace of change in the Church. How many Lutherans does it take to change a light bulb? Change? Why would we change? Why we love that old light bulb. It has served us well. Let's just wait and see if it may serve us still.
The reality is that Lutheranism has changed and radically so... There was a time when you could walk into any Lutheran congregation on Sunday morning and know what to expect liturgically. The Common Service was the rule, the Galesburg Rule (Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants), and a common hymnody made us thoroughly predictable. No more. There was a time when you could count on Lutherans to have learned the Small Catechism as youth or adults and to continue to look to the catechism as faithful expression of what we believe, teach, and confess. No more. There was a time when you would expect elements used in the Sacrament of the Altar to be uniform, that those elements would be treated with respect for what they are (by the Lord's own word, His body and His blood), and that those who commune would share a common faith and confession. No more. There was a time when you might expect that Lutherans heralded the family -- husband and wife (with their children) endeavoring to live within the framework of forgiveness and grace for as long as they lived. No more.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that there was a golden age of Lutheranism or a perfect time for Lutherans or perfect Lutheran people. But there was confidence in the Word, confidence in our Confession, confidence in our catechism, and confidence in the liturgical expression of our commonly held faith. With all the changes, have we grown more confident or less? Are we more sure of the Gospel because it comes in so many flavors (sort of like the elements in the Sacrament of the Altar)? Are we more sure of Scripture because we have read all the scholars? Are we more sure of the order the Lord intended for His creation because of the various forms of family available to us now?
What the good Pastor Weedon is saying specifically about the Sacrament of the Altar, applies in many ways to many different aspects of our beliefs and our life together as Lutheran people. Experimentation has become more the rule than exception. Our tinkering with the faith has led us more to doubt than confidence. In the end we find ourselves drawing the ultimate false conclusion -- that it matters not what you believe or how you practice it but that you are sincere. Again, I am not suggesting that we never change but that faithful change grows from and reflects back to the source. Many of the changes we have seen have only left us more and more distant from the source and adrift on a sea of sincerely held doubt. Not a good thing...
While I believe I understand the point of the post, and personally find much goodness in the traditions of the Church, I thought that, ultimately, the "whence comes doubt" was nothing less than sin-turning in on ourselves and away from God. At the same time, while I do not advocate change simply for changes' sake or for faddish whims and fancies, I do believe faithful questioning can and must lead to some necessary changes in tradition (think Reformation, semper reformanda). As St. Thomas learned, even in the midst of our great doubts, the risen Christ is still present to welcome us back to faith - for us the strengthening power of the Sacrament.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "mandated institution
ReplyDeleteof the Lord" for funerals, weddings,
or liturgy. What Weedon said about
the Eucharist applies only to the
Eucharist. I think Peters missed
applied his statement.
Irenaeus: Why do you believe in semper Reformanda? I don't get that. I can understand how a Lutheran would believe that the Lutheran reformation was necessary, but, why the need for further, continual "reformation" once you have corrected the problem? Wouldn't this semper reformanda principle eventually transform Lutheranism into Calvinism into Congregationalism/Baptists and then ultimately into Unitarianism and Deism/Agnosticism? Where does it end?
ReplyDeleteQuote: What Weedon said about
ReplyDeletethe Eucharist applies only to the
Eucharist. I think Peters missed
applied his statement.
Did you even read the whole post?
Quote: why the need for further, continual "reformation"
Not reforming more, but keeping to the reform, keeping to the confession, reigning in the deviation from the faith in other generations (whether it be the same error or a new one). This principle is not about going beyond the Confessions, but it is about remaining true to the confession in each age and time.
Brother Boris: As I understand it, semper reformanda is a means to ensure that whatever we are engaged in does not obscure the centrality of Christ and the Gospel. I believe that, on some levels, Lutherans have rested on their "Reformation laurels" to the extent that many non-Lutheran practices have not only krept into her ranks, but oftentimes have been welcomed with open arms. In that light I would respectfully disagree that semper reformanda could or would lead to beliefs as found among the Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. In fact I could easily see semper reformanda purging the Lutheran communion of such influences.
ReplyDeleteIrenaeus: Thank you for your reply. So in other words, Semper Reformanda could mean the same thing as Semper Augustana or Semper Concordia then?
ReplyDeleteOr could it even be Tenes Traditiones Lutherana (holding to the Lutheran traditions) ?
Just a thought.
Judas H Priest OSB, the phrase "semper reformanda" isn't even a Lutheran one. It comes from the Nadere Reformation, a Dutch Calvinist "Second Reformation" and what it thought was Martin Luther's intent. Recently, as in Vatican II on, it has been used by RC theologians to express that reform and even more recently for the whole "hermeneutic of continuity" thing.
ReplyDeleteThanks Terry. I didn't realize the phrase had a Dutch Calvinist origin.
ReplyDeleteHell Boris, before long they'll be talking aggioramento and approfonimento!
ReplyDeleteSadly, I agree with Brother Boris. Where do you draw the line? Lutheranism is indeed being slowly transformed into non-denominational mush. Rob Bell has made the jump from mushy Church Growth theology to Universalism. It is only a matter of time before other mega-churches (Lutheran churches included) do the same thing.
ReplyDeleteYou would walk into any LCMS congregation that is a member of Willow Creek and discover that the Small Catechism is not used for adult new member classes. Why remain Lutheran if LCMS churches hide their theology in favor of non-Lutheran theological materials?
The Eastern Orthodox church starts to look more appealing to us confessionals with each passing day....
I don't think you find the Small Catechism used for adult new member classes in the EO.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Be cautious about the Eastern Orthodox Church. I can understand your interest, but I don't want to be accused of sheep stealing on a Lutheran blog.
ReplyDeleteI'll be blunt. If a Lutheran wants to convert to Orthodoxy, he will have to give up a LOT of things that Lutherans hold dear, esp. monergism and all those solas. Orthodox are synergists, and we believe that man can cooperate with God. This belief effects all our theology and makes it quite different from the Lutheran. Secondly, Orthodox don't have the Lutheran "law versus Gospel" dialectic. Its just not there. Thirdly, the solas. Orthodox do believe we are saved by grace (but not by grace alone). Orthodox believe we are saved through faith (by not by faith alone) and must scandalous of all to Lutheran ears, Orthodox believe we are saved by Christ (by not by Christ alone.) Nothing isolated and "alone" saves us. Salvation is a holistic thing to us and many factors are involved. You just can't narrow it down to one thing.
My point is, if you are considering Orthodoxy, you have to be prepared to dump your Lutheranism to embrace it. Otherwise, it won't work.
Sorry to be so blunt, but Eastern Orthodoxy just isn't like Lutheranism at all. If you are seriously considering it, prepared to be shocked and startled.
Brother Boris,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your blunt words. The two confessions are fundamentally different - even though there are attractive points of coherence. Above all, the Lutheran Confession is and remains essentially Western. We're honestly more at home when dealing with Roman Catholics than Orthodox, because even while we disagree we still operate within largely the same theological thought constructs.
Anon,
If you do confess the SC as being in agreement with the truth of God's Word, the East is no home for you. Lutherans who are committed to their Confessions have to soldier on. But we must also beware of a rather silly comparing of a Lutheran "on the ground reality" to an Orthodox "ideal" rather than comparing the Lutheran ideal to the Orthodox ideal and the Lutheran "on the ground reality" to the Orthodox "on the ground reality." FWIW.
Right on Brother Boris. Refreshing honesty. No matter how poorly the Lutheran faith is confessed and practiced around me -- let alone BY me -- it is what I believe. Neither the RCC nor the EO does that, and to jump to either over the faults of Lutheran practice frankly indicates the whole thing was indeed built on dressing up and playing church.
ReplyDelete"to jump to either over the faults of Lutheran practice frankly indicates the whole thing was indeed built on dressing up and playing church..."
ReplyDeleteOr, it could just mean that they no longer confess the SC. You don't have to throw in the remark about dressing up and playing church. I have found that some Lutherans who jump ship do not see any logical progression at all but have come to the conclusion that Lutheranism is not what they thought it was and they are of another confession. It is ridiculous to label all those who leave Lutheranism as chancel prancers who are only interested in smells and bells. Just ain't so.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThat is absolutely correct. But it IS an error to think that one can become Orthodox in order to PRACTICE Lutheranism. I.e., that the Orthodox "on the ground" is the place to live out "the Lutheran ideal."
It's damned funny then how they never talk about how they no longer confess the Small Catechism, just on and on about weekly Communion, poor liturgy or no liturgy at all, clerical garb, interior and exterior church architecture, ad nauseam.
ReplyDeleteThat's the "Lutheranism" that isn't what they thought it would be, never a You know what, it really isn't sola fide, You know what, there really is an apostolic succession and we broke with it, stuff like that.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI understand your frustratation because I shared it at one time. I loathe the term "chancel prancers" and never use it. I never saw it when I was in Lutheranism and haven't seen it in the Orthodox Church either. We Orthodox have very, very few processions. Anyone who is familiar with our liturgy knows that. Now we do have lots of bells and smells, that's true. But "chancel prancing"? Please. Most of the "action" in an Orthodox liturgy is simply the priest standing at the altar quietly praying, no "prancing" at all involved. In fact, I think the so-called "Children's Sermon" is a good example of vile "chancel prancing" that ought to be reigned in and banished from the Divine Service. I'm just saying. :)
I am not so sure that the Small Catechism (Luther's words and not the Synodical extras) would be unacceptable to Rome -- incomplete maybe, but not heretical. In fact, I think I read of places where Romans did use Luther's Small Catechism (first 32 pages or so of the Synodical edition). Orthodoxy, no, but Rome, I am not so sure. Terry, you may be wrong when it comes to those who swam the Tiber. They could keep the Luther part of the Small Catechism and add to it the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteAre you bagging me, whichever anonymous you are? I am myself a Tiber swimmer, but in the right direction -- OUT!
ReplyDeleteThe Small Catechism is entirely deficient for its stated aims as an RC document. Particularly the four it does not even mention, by RC belief. By which lights too the understanding of the Office of the Keys is just flat wrong. Incomplete can be heretical indeed, if something essential is not mentioned at all as if it did not exist, or spoken of wrongly.
As to whether the Catechism of the Catholic Church is itself faithful to Catholic teaching prior to the 1960s, I'll leave that to Catholic intramurals. The book is entirely irrelevant to us, except insofar as some appropriate that too as yet another non-Lutheran source to make it Lutheran and from which to learn how to be Lutheran.
The Bishop of Phoenix would not accept the SC on the sixth chief part: "the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself *for us Christians to eat AND TO DRINK*."
ReplyDeleteActually he does, the quibble comes about what it is "to drink".
ReplyDeleteNor is the "bishop"s" statement made on his own. The reforms of Vatican II never meant for Communion in both kinds to be established as the norm for the laity, but an option on certain occasions.
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/uploads/docs/COMMUNION-NEWS-RELEASE-092111.pdf
Since Christ is fully sacramentally present in either species, Communion under bread alone fulfills the command and imparts the grace.
Welcome to romanitas.