...So the lead pastor (pope) of the Roman Catholic Church, with more than 1 billion members, resigns and 13 days later his replacement is chosen, installed, and at work... Our 70 member congregation went through nearly three years of hoops before we welcomed our new pastor... what is wrong with this picture?
I understand the frustration. Four months ago I got word that my own name had appeared on a call list. I got a phone call just recently that said they have yet to elect someone and send out a call. I also know of congregations whose process to a new Pastor has taken years -- literally!
The situation is not exact analogous. There was no call committee to pick and choose. There were no interviews with the candidates. There was no District or Synod office sifting through names. There was no timetable for election that spanned months and had specific requirements about the time between call meetings nor was there a method that had to be used to contact every member (no matter how delinquent) to make sure all had a chance to weigh in on the process, show up for the call meeting, and cast a vote.
We have made the call process into a much more elaborate series of hoops to jump through but the reason for that cannot simply be assigned to the desire of bishops or district presidents to manipulate the process (as some complain). No, the issue is far more complex.
Congregations approach the call process more with skepticism and fear than with joy and confidence. We almost presume that there are few competent clergy out there and plenty of duds that we have to sift through. We act as if we are a hiring committee and so the criteria for calling becomes more like business criteria than a churchly act. We want volumes of information so that we can predict how a prospective Pastor might act, preach, lead, etc... We interview them as if the key to the whole thing were to find a Pastor who matches us (like eharmony.com). In this way we emphasize less the duties and responsibilities of the call documents and emphasize more things like mission statements, strengths and weaknesses, personal characteristics, temperament, and the ever present "pastoral style." We vote not as people who trust in the Lord of the Church but as people who fear they will make a mistake unless they get the "right" match and as people whose confidence lies more in the wisdom and perceptions of the call committee who has met the candidates than the Spirit's work of discernment and guidance. It is as if we might be happier if we could cohabit with a prospective Pastor before we actually tie the knot!
Pastors, on the other hand, have considerably more issues than in the past -- not in the least of which is the housing issue. Can I sell my house? For how much? What does housing cost at the site of the call? How fast can I buy a house and move in? Etc.... Pastors have the careers and employment of wives to consider and how it impacts the decision to go or to stay. Pastors consider whether the new place will be close to family and how it will impact relationships with in-laws and families, children, grandchildren, etc... This all comes before the prayerful discernment if the Lord is calling them to this new place. Sometimes Pastors must also consider medical accessibility for family members. Pastors consider the theological climate of the district and the history of the congregation (is it a clergy eater). Pastors face the reality of cost of living and compensation. There are many more but this gives a glimpse into the other side of the call coin.
Now, I am not saying Pastor and parish are evil in thinking of these things. What I am saying is that we have all lost sight of one thing implicit in the selection of a new pope in 13 days. The cardinals in the room doing the voting and the Roman Catholic Church at large generally believe that man chosen to be pope is God's man -- even when they disagree with him. That is the core problem today. Neither the congregations calling nor the clergy they call have confidence in the Lord working in this process. Instead of welcoming and trusting the people and the places, we begin with skepticism, we continue with some cautious concern, and we wait and see after the process is complete to see if we like or dislike, support or do not support the end result.
Let me make a confession. I have accepted two calls in my life and one was pretty much done for me through the placement process of our church body. In both cases, I accepted the calls thinking it was God's will only to find myself caught up in doubt and fear when I actually showed up in both places to begin my ministry there. Yet, the Lord has shown me His hand in this process and I have come to know and believe that both placements were by His hand. I did not express this fear and trepidation with my parishes or even my family until after I was convinced that the Lord's hand had triumphed and His will was done. So I do not speak as one who was immune from the pitfalls of the call process. Yet, in neither place did I interview and neither place had a clue whom I was until I showed up. What has allowed me to serve in both places has been the trust in the Lord that the place was His will and the person. It was not automatic and it was not without some angst but both places and people are more confirmed than ever that the Lord was in this mess we have termed the call process.
How we do it is not a divinely established process. Luther had no call in the sense that we use that term -- no congregation, no committee, no vote. Some Lutherans use an episcopal process. I am more inclined to believe that some know better than me and so the judgement of others has not been incidental to either place or process. But it is the process we have in the LCMS. As long as we do not abuse it and make it into a head hunting group and goal, it will serve us well. As long as we do not lose sight of the will and purpose of God and control it as a merely human endeavor, it will serve us well. As long as we do not over manipulate the process with pre-call interviews and machinations and follow the call with prayerful trust in the Lord, it will serve us well. It need not drag out years but it will hardly happen as quickly as it did in Rome a few months ago...
36 comments:
Quite a few year a go, I was an LCMS layman. My family and I moved to a very small town where there was no LCMS parish. The ALC, LCA and WELS were all there, but the LCMS was not to be found. My family found one other in town who wanted to start an LCMS parish, and together we began an LCMS mission with the help of a Pastor who had a two church circuit, the closest church some 40 miles away from us. We worked hard, and built that little mission up, and it continues to the present day.
When we began to have a good group of regular folks coming every Sunday, we petitioned the the District to send us a Pastor. They were reluctant; they said we would never last because there were too many Lutheran parishes in this small town already. At long last, they did send us one, Pastor Special.
We called him Pastor Special because "special" was he preferred word, a word he simply loved to use. He would carry on endlessly about how we were special people doing special work in this special place at this special time for this special purpose, achieving special results for the glory of our special God. It go to the point that, when returning from Sunday services, frequently one of my kids would say something like, "I got 78 this morning; how many did you get?" Everyone in the family was keeping count of the number of times he used the word "special" during the morning. It utterly destroyed his effectiveness, and shortly drove us to leave the parish we had founded.
I have often wondered how things would have turned out differently if the District would have sent us someone other than this utterly failed man who was so completely useless to us. But it is all water under the bridge now.
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Is it any wonder that many Lutheran parishes are functioning without a full time or even part time pastor? Many of those have opted for a deacon or some sort of lay leader. This is of course, what happens when you have a congregational polity. Every congregation is their own Church (big c) so they may make their own rules. Even the Book of Concord does not speak of polity in terms of only congregations so this system, which has become the litmus test by which a congregation is identified as LCMS, is purely concocted without the confessions in mind. Reap what you sow. Until a hierarchichal polity is (re)established, this is only going to continue and get much worse. So you have to ask yourself, what's more important? That parishes have a pastor who can preach to them and give them the sacraments or that they be allowed to wallow head deep in the antiquated call process?--Chris
Fr. D+
Sounds like the district knowingly sent your church a bad pastor so that the congregation would fail. Sad.
Since most LCMS district presidents are not practicing pastors, it must be easy for them to behave like armchair generals located far away from the trenches.
Lay leadership is what Mormons do, isn't it?
Sometimes getting a new pastor for a congregation can take a long time, especially if the call has been returned several times or if there were existing issues related to the previous pastor leaving. In other cases, such a retiring pastor, the congregation has time to organize, plan, consult, and prepare a list of candidates while the pastor is still there, shortening the time of vacancy.
Also, a congregation whose previous pastor was there for decades before leaving or retiring may want to spend sometime reviewing or updating their congregation's spiritual growth, organization, and goals, especially if the church operates a school or has special needs among its members. They may want to consider whether to consider the choices or a young pastor or one that has experience with shepherding a congregation like theirs.
In addition to the differences noted in comparing the sometimes lengthy calling of a Lutheran pastor and the seemingly efficient election of a pope, one difference was not mentioned - in the latter case, Satan is involved in the election of a new Antichrist.
Carl, most of your comment was very good and contributed significantly to the conversation. That is, until you got to your last paragraph.
You can rest assured that Satan is no more involved in the election of a new pope than he his in the call process of an LCMS pastor. Both present him opportunities, but to refer to the pope as antichrist is really a stretch. You simply encourage and propagate the old divisions within Christendom with words of this sort.
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Dr. D (Anglican priest): "to refer to the pope as antichrist is really a stretch"
It is not a stretch, but rather it is what Lutherans maintain as a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions -
Smalcald Articles.IV.10: This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist.
SA.IV12: Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord.
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.39: And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.
Tr.41: On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded
Tr.42: On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused; for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope are manifest. And Scripture with its entire voice exclaims that these errors are a teaching of demons and of Antichrist.
Tr.57: Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist.
Carl, the Smalcald Articles hardly rise to the level of being Scripture. I'll even go so far as to suggest that they were written in anger and reaction at the time of the Reformation, and do not reflect an entirely Christian perspective. Would you rather be Lutheran or Christian?
There are errors to be found in every part of the Christian Church (Rome, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and yes, even the LCMS!), or so it appears to me. I do not find grounds for any of us to label the other categorically as antichrist.
In an age when Christians around the world are being driven out by murdering muzlims in many places, I think it is really costly and unwise to continue to divide Christendom over issues that should have died many years ago.
The Roman Catholic Church at one time was a threat to Christians who wanted to worship in other ways; this is not longer the case. Why continue a fight that ended many years ago, and ignore the battle that is going on under our noses?
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Oh how I would gladly be stuck with the problems of the LCMS than to be entangled in those of the (much more liberal) Anglican church! As a Lutheran and quiet observer with no stake in the outcome, I find the dissolution of the Anglican churches fascinating:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/index.php
Dr. D,
You may claim you are an Anglican priest, but you are a slanderer when you claim "I'll even go so far as to suggest that they were written in anger and reaction at the time of the Reformation, and do not reflect an entirely Christian perspective."
You present no evidence, for there is none. Moreover, the Articles written by Dr. Martin Luther at the end of 1536 at the request of Elector John Frederick of Saxony were approved by theologians at the Smalcald meeting in 1537. At the meeting the Treatise, written by Philipp Melenchthon was also ratified by the Smalcald assembly.
Furthermore, in 1580, the Smalcald Articles, Treatise, and other Lutheran Symbols were affirmed and published together in the Book of Concord [Lutheran Confessions], which states in the Introduction:
"We indeed (to repeat in conclusion what we have mentioned several times above) have wished, in this work of concord, in no way to devise what is new, or to depart from the truth of the heavenly doctrine which our ancestors, renowned for their piety, as well as we ourselves, have acknowledged and professed. We mean that doctrine, which, having been derived from the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures, is contained in the three ancient Creeds, in the Augsburg Confession, presented in the year 1530 to the Emperor Charles V, of excellent memory, then in the Apology, which was added to this, in the Smalcald Articles [NOTE: including the appended Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope], and lastly in both the Catechisms of that excellent man, Dr. Luther. Therefore we also have determined not to depart even a finger’s breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the phrases which are found in them, but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly agreement, and we intend to examine all controversies according to this true norm and declaration of the pure doctrine."
Even today the Lutheran Church maintains that the pope is the Antichrist.
In short, to be a confessional Lutheran is to be an orthodox Christian.
It is somewhat peculiar that a Lutheran layman needs to defend the Lutheran Confessions against an Anglican's unwarranted attack and inference that there is a difference between being "Lutheran" and being "Christian." And all of this on a blog site operated by a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor, who, in his ordination, promised his own quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions.
Goodness, Carl, this matter seems to really stir up your bile!
There is absolutely no doubt that I am an Anglican priest, standing in the Apostolic Succession of the Church since the beginning. I will also still stand by my statement regarding the manner in which the Smalcald Articles were written. It may come as a shock to you, but Luther, Melanchthon, the Elector, etc. were still just men, not prophets, not angels. They were just as capable of error and you and I are.
It is usually not necessary to present evidence in order to simply make a suggestion, but since you insist, I will point to some. Simply the generally unchristian, uncharitable act of calling another Christian, in this case, the pope, the antichrist is evidence that the Articles are flawed. We are not called upon by Christ to judge other people in this manner; He will judge.
You make much of the fact that you, a Lutheran layman must defend the Lutheran Confessions on a blog run by an LCMS pastor. Did you expect Pastor Peters to rise up and join you in your bigotry? My "attack" on the Confessions has done them no harm, but it has certainly raised your blood pressure. Not all are nearly as narrow as you are, Carl (thanks be to God!).
And to my Anonymous friend, how is it that you delight in the problems of other Christians? That is a strange sort of Christianity you practice; I don't think I want any of that.
I left the LCMS because they could not seem to hold fast to what they believed. They were continually changing the form of the service. There is an ancient saying, Lex Orandi, Lex Crededi meaning that the Law of Praying is the Law of Believing. If you change the way you worship, you have changed what you believe. I now worship with a form almost identical to that which I first used when I joined the LCMS many years ago, a form I now know came largely from the Book of Common Prayer.
It is time to stop fighting old battles and stop delighting in the troubles of other Christians. Both of these tear down the Kingdom, rather than build it up. Let us each worship Christ as we understand Him, but not fight among ourselves about it.
Thank you for sharing how you left Lutheranism. How many others have left for the same reasons you provided. Do Lutheran denominations have a future. I see too much infighting within the LCMS for that denomination to be effective. The greatest enemies of Lutheranism are Lutherans themselves. Lack of consensus prevents confessional Lutheranism from growing and thriving.
I delight not in the problems of other Christians, but in the failed efforts of "progressive" theologians.
Liberal theology is destroying these denominations:
http://tinyurl.com/b3a2p4s
Thankfully, conservative congregations will rise from the ashes strengthened and renewed. "Still attending Grandpa's church"
Dr. D,
First you slander the writers of Lutheran Symbols; now you toss a few ad hominems my way:
"this matter seems to really stir up your bile!"
"It may come as a shock to you"
"it has certainly raised your blood pressure"
"Not all are nearly as narrow as you are"
Those are childish retorts for my explaining why the statement, "the pope is the Antichrist" is not a "stretch, but part of the Lutheran Confessions held by the Lutheran Church in the 16th century and still up through today.
As for your claim, "Luther, Melanchthon, the Elector, etc. were still just men, not prophets, not angels. They were just as capable of error and you and I are," No one is arguing that they were not capable of error. However, all the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are accepted by Lutherans as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.
You claim, "I left the LCMS because they could not seem to hold fast to what they believed." Yet you yourself also have rejected these Lutheran Confessions, which is the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
At your Lutheran confirmation, when you were asked, "Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?", you answered, "I do."
When you were asked, "Do you intend to continue steadfast in this confession and Church and to suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?", you answered, "I do, by the grace of God."
Your solemn word to continue steadfast in the Lutheran Confessions appears to have been worthless.
Dear Dr. D,
Jumping back to your first comment, did you go in private to Pastor Special by appointment equipped with a lengthy list of examples and have a Broth in Christ discussion with him or did you sit back and laugh with your kids?
I have had two examples of doing what I suggest. The first Pastor listened Io me, agreed I was correct, and made it very clear my involvement was not welcomed. A second Pastor and I went toe to toe I called him a sinner! And a meanie! His response "YEP". We are fast friends and he after prayerfully considering my input reconsidered. If you never went and talked to your mission Pastor you are guilty of the greater sin.
Addressing your leaving the LCMS.... Carl has dealt very adroitly there! You would do well to stop now before you embarrass yourself more.
Oddly enough, the whole idea of clergy and laity did not exist in original church...
Factually, the concept of clergy and laity did exist in the original church, although not in the same structure as today within the Missouri Synod, or even within the structure existing at the time of the Lutheran Reformation.
Let me speak to Mark first. It has been so many years now that I do not remember the details of exactly what I did with regard to Pastor Special. You can be assured, however, that after working diligently for several years to raise a mission congregation from scratch, where I did much of the work myself, I certainly did not just sit back and laugh at him and watch it fall down. When my family left that congregation, we did it quietly, without fanfare or nasty words to anyone. We had simply had all we could take. If others were still happy with him, we were not going to make waves for them.
Now regarding "Carl's adroit" handling of my leaving the LCMS. Any answers that I gave at my Lutheran confirmation were predicated on the Lutheran Church remaining constant in the faith. Look around you; has it done that? I would say it has not. I am far more concerned with being faithful to Christ and worshiping Him properly than I am to any human organization. I am not in the least bit embarrassed about leaving the Lutheran Church. I went where I could worship Jesus Christ in the the best possible way as I understand it, and nothing else is of any consequence at all.
Carl, your comments reflect the legalism, the pharisical approach particularly common to the LCMS. You would bind people to words said in the past, not letting them be free to change with changing circumstances in the church and their own knowledge of Christ.
If we are going to get nasty about it, as Carl already has, calling my solemn word "worthless," I would have to say that the inconstant, wavering, and changeable Lutheran Church proved itself to be worthless to me. I left for Continuing Anglicanism, where the faith is the same today as it has been in ages past. One thing I did learn in the Lutheran Church is that Jesus Christ is more important than any human institution, and He sets us free!
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Oh, and by the way, Carl, when you say:
However, all the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are accepted by Lutherans as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.
It seems that you are thereby making all of these additional "Symbolical Books" equal to, and thus included with, Holy Scripture. Isn't that explicitly forbidden in Scripture?
Dr. D.: "Any answers that I gave at my Lutheran confirmation were predicated on the Lutheran Church remaining constant in the faith."
The Evangelical Lutheran Church has remain constant in the catholic faith. The answer of a confirmand is predicated on all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures being the inspired Word of God and the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from the Book of Concord, being a faithful and true exposition.
The answer is not predicated on whether some individual Lutheran pastors, congregations or members remain true to the Lutheran Confessions or betray their own vows.
Dr. D, you did not betray your vow to the confession of the Lutheran Church because of what some other person or some other people did or failed to do with their vows. Blaming the failure of others for what you decided to do with your vow is pathetic. You betrayed your vow before God because you no longer (if ever) believed the Book of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church to be a faithful and true confession.
"It seems that you are thereby making all of these additional "Symbolical Books" equal to, and thus included with, Holy Scripture. Isn't that explicitly forbidden in Scripture?"
It is also explicitly forbidden in the Lutheran Confessions (FC.Rule and Norm.2):
"First, then, we receive and embrace with our whole heart the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged."
Since the time of my last previous post, I have had another face-to-face encounter with Jesus Christ, my Saviour. I have just said my regular Friday morning Mass. In it, I was reminded of my need to repent, to seek forgiveness, to admit my sins.
Therefore, at this point, I want to ask forgiveness from Carl, Mark, Pastor Peters, and any others whom I may have offended in my previous remarks. I am a sinner, in need of forgiveness, prayer, and salvation, just like any other person.
I am about to leave this thread; my intent is that this will be my final post. I want to leave you with two parts of the Mass that I have just finished; these are common to almost all Masses that I say.
The first is a prayer known as the Prayer for the Unity of Christ's Church. It is said very shortly before the distribution of the Holy Communion. The second is the known among Anglicans and Roman Catholics as the Last Gospel. It consists of the opening words of the Gospel of John, recited at the very end of the Mass following the dismissal.
The Prayer for the Unity of Christ's Church
O Lord Jesus Christ, who saidst to thine Apostles, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: regard my sins but the faith of thy Church; and grant to it that peace and unity which is according to thy will. Who livest and reignst God, world without end. Amen.
The Last Gospel
John 1:1-14 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ infuse His whole Church, and never let the efforts of mere men seek to separate us from Him in any way. Jesus Christ is all that matters, and we must each come to Him in Spirit and in Truth in whatever way we are best able to do so.
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Carl,
Don't the vows require agreement with the Small Catechism rather than the entire Book of Concord?
David Gray: "Don't the vows require agreement with the Small Catechism rather than the entire Book of Concord?"
That claim might be true IF the question addressed to confirmands were:
"Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess those specific articles of doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which you have learned to know from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?"
But in fact, the confirmands are asked:
"Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?"
The doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is contained in the Book of Concord.
One might as well frivolously argue that because some confirmands may not have read the entire Bible (much less in the original Greek and Hebrew texts), that confirmands should only vow to hold "all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures they have actually read to be the inspired Word of God."
Carl,
I'm not looking to pick a fight but they are only confessing the "doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church" which they have "learned to know it from the Small Catechism." There are many elements of the Book of Concord which are not addressed or contained in the Small Catechism and I don't see how that vow commits someone to any doctrine they haven't learned from the Small Catechism.
Dear Dr. D,
May Our Lord Bless You and Keep You. May Our Lord bring You Discernment. I forgive you. I pray you grow in the knowledge of Holy Scripture. An old Anglican Priest I know would always face the Alter and recite the following:
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
I ask your forgiveness for any offense I may have caused.
John Mark IXOYC
David Gray: I'm not looking to pick a fight but they are only confessing the "doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church" which they have "learned to know it from the Small Catechism."
Let's look at the question. The independent clause, "as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism," does not act to limit the extent of the question itself, "Do you... confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church... to be faithful and true?"
The independent clause, "as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism," maintains the unity of doctrine ("it"); the clause does not separate doctrine into doctrine from the Small Catechism and doctrine from other Lutheran Symbols. "It" is one doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from "the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures."
What a confirmand vows to hold as faithful and true is the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, not just part of the doctrine he may have read or memorized.
Lutherans who join a Missouri Synod congregation make the same promise when they become communicant members. The constitution of a Missouri Synod congregation has words to the effect (from “Guidelines for the Constitution and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation”):
“Communicant members are those baptized members who have been instructed and are familiar with the contents of Luther’s Small Catechism, have been confirmed in the Lutheran faith, and accept the confessional standard of Section ___ of this Constitution.” [Emphasis added]
That confessional standard in the congregation’s constitution is the unconditional subscription to the doctrinal exposition of the Book of Concord.
The interpretation that confirmands or new members are making some kind of conditional or limited (quatenus) subscription conflicts with the fact that the congregation itself (men, women, and baptized children and infants) of a LCMS church has publicly acknowledged their joint unconditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions as stated in the church's constitution when that congregation joined and remains part of the Missouri Synod.
Furthermore, it is not required for a valid unconditional subscription that the individual members of a Missouri Synod church read all of the Book of Concord of 1580, in the original German, or even some English translation. And it is not required that individual members of a Missouri Synod church compare the doctrine contained in the German Book of Concord of 1580 with all of the available Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments before affirming such an unconditional subscription. Inidividual member of a Missouri Synod church do not need to provide an evidence that they have read and compared all of these documents and texts before they are admitted as communicant members and receive the Lord's Supper.
(Similarly, when one pledges alliegance to the United States, one has not studied and understood every law of the land.)
Unless the Lutheran member publicly states or acts to the contrary we should let the public "I do" of each confirmand and each person becoming a communicant member be the answer they give before God and the congregation. And the pastor and others in the congregation witnessing such an public affirmation should continue in their committment to help in the further training of those members to grow in the understanding of the confession of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church to which they have unconditionally subscribed.
Carl,
Thank you for explaining your understanding. I must confess if that was what was meant then it would be better to have written it in a different fashion. Our local LCMS pastor, a very confessional and older man, does not explain it the way that you do. I guess I'll leave it at that.
An interesting read:
http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/2013/05/30/a-lutheran-angle-on-anglicanism/
An additional explanation is provided on the BJS Post #6, p. 2. It includes the question asked of the confirmand, which is rearranged into two parts to show the points more clearly:
1. Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God?
2. [A]s you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, [do you] confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from [Holy Scriptures], to be faithful and true?
If one were to apply the assessment of Lutheran instruction made by Martin Luther in the first two paragraphs of his Preface to the Small Catechism to today's Lutheran instruction in catechism class (for youth and adults), it would be concerning teaching catechumens the names and brief summaries of the Lutheran Symbols to which they will confess to be faithful and true.
Carl,
Thanks, I found this part of the discussion interesting:
“Confessional Lutheran pastors are required to “subscribe” unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions because they are a pure exposition of the Word of God. This is the way our pastors, and every layman who confesses his belief in the Small Catechism, is able with great joy and without reservation or qualification to say what it is that he believes to be the truth of God’s Word.”
- bookofconcord.org
Apparently there is not consensus.
This is from a Minnesota LCMS church:
Communicant members are those baptized members who accept all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the only divine rule and standard of faith and conduct; are acquainted with, and accept Luther's Small Catechism; lead a Christian life and abstain from manifest works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19 21); attend divine services faithfully and partake of the Lord's Supper frequently; submit, for the sake of love and peace, to the regulations already made, or still to be made by this body, provided they do not conflict with the Word of God, and accept Scriptural admonition (Matthew 18:15 20) when having erred or offended; and are not a member of any secret or other organization conflicting with the Word of God, such as anti-Christian lodges.
The quote in the June 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM post is part of the answer to the BookofConcord webpage question, "What is an 'unconditional subscription' to the Confessions?"
That part of the answer is incorrect and contradicts the attached explanation given by C.F.W. Walther. It also contradicts the answer given to the subsequent question, "So what is it to be a Lutheran?"
The BookofConcord website moderator has been notified of this error and a suggested correct answer.
"Communicant members are those baptized members who... submit, for the sake of love and peace, to the regulations already made..."
Included in those "regulations already made," is Article III, of that Minnesota LCMS church's Constitution, which states:
This congregation accepts and acknowledges:
a. The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired and inerrant Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice;
b. All the symbolic books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, as the true, sound, and unadulterated statement and exhibition of Christian doctrine, to wit; The three Ecumenical Creeds (the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed); The Unaltered Augsburg Confession; The Apology of the Same; The Smalcald Articles; Luther's Small and Large Catechism; The Formula of Concord.
Thus, while the wording of this Minnesota LCMS church's Constitution is not identical with that in the LCMS guidelines for communicant membership, the church's communicant members do agree to "submit, for the sake of love and peace" to Article III, in which, as part of the congregation, they accept and acknowledge "all the symbolic books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, as the true, sound, and unadulterated statement and exhibition of Christian doctrine".
You seem to struggle with the differentiation between a congregation and a communicant member. The LCMS itself only requires unconditional subscription to the Book of Concord from ministers and congregations.
David Gray: You seem to struggle with the differentiation between a congregation and a communicant member.
Why would you make such an unsubstantiated ad hominem accusation when there is no such evidence to support it? I have been very clear in distinguishing between a congregation and a communicant member of a congregation.
The Constitution of the Minnesota LCMS church is also clear on the requirements for "anyone" to "be a member of this congregation," as I previously shown from excerpts.
The LCMS itself only requires unconditional subscription to the Book of Concord from ministers and congregations
No one is debating this. All individual and congregational members of the Missouri Synod are required to hold unconditional subscription to the Book of Concord. It is in the constitution of synodical churches where the requirements for becoming a communicant member of the congregation include submitting to the article concerning the congregation's confession of faith.
If one claims a laymember of a congregation is not part of the congregation, then all laymembers of the congregation can be considered as not part of the congregation. So where is the congregation? Or is there a Loeheist answer waiting in the wings?!? ;-)
Why would you make such an unsubstantiated ad hominem accusation when there is no such evidence to support it?
I'm afraid you provide the evidence just below this quote.
I'm afraid you provide the evidence just below this quote."
Do not be afraid. It is only your imagination.
Post a Comment