Did we mean what we said. . .

There are some Lutherans who believe the Augustana is the fringe and the later confessions the core and center of Lutheranism.  I am not one of them.  I believe that the confession made at Augsburg was not an anomaly but the truth of what we believe, teach, and confess.  Yes, some of the confessions that came after had more vitriol than the Augustana -- understandably so in the aftermath of all that had happened on both sides of the Reformation.  But they must be read through the lens of what we confessed in Augsburg and not the other way around.  Yes, things did change and the whole landscape of what was begun by Luther and his cohort ended up far different than they could have known or predicted when Melanchthon put pen to paper.  But either we meant what we said at Augsburg or Lutherans were lying and deceiving their counterparts in the papal party.  If you vote for Lutherans not meaning what they said, then that says a great deal about us as Lutherans.  Could we be disillusioned by how the events unfolded and the actions taken?  Sure.  Could we be bitter and angry and even resentful of the later developments?  You betcha.  But I simply do not buy the argument that Melanchthon pulled a fast one on Luther and wrote a compromising version of the Reformation's claims that Luther and the others had already abandoned.  Furthermore, I think those who pit the Augustana against the later confessions or who weight those higher than the first confession are signalling something more than just an historical argument but coming down on the side of Lutheranism as it ended up as an institution.  

That is where things are now in Lutheranism.  Are we the Augustana voices contending for the evangelical catholic faith or are we the institutionalized Protestants who are either embarrassed by or who long ago rejected that evangelical catholicity?  There are those who try to norm Lutheran identity and practice with the majority -- which cities and jurisdictions did this or that in the pursuit of some sort of consensus.  Democracy and majority are not the gauge of truth -- we all ought to know that pretty well by now.  Yes, there were patterns that developed and some practices continued and some did not but there was no uniform rationale for which were retained long after the Reformation and which were not.  The history of Lutheran doctrine and practice has been typical of that of all Christianity -- loss and restoration, decline and renewal.  The Common Service was not the epitome of Lutheran liturgical practice but it was one profound and highly significant renewal of what had been either lost or not practiced faithfully.  To place that Common Service and the hymnals that published it as the pristine and unmarred example of Lutheran liturgical identity is to miss the point entirely.  Even that restoration did not fuel the renewal of a Eucharistic and baptismal piety that is unmistakable in the core writings of the Lutheran Confessions and, indeed, of Luther himself.

I believe it is not only important but helpful to know our past but to know our past is to see how less than salutary influences have deprived us of what our Augustana understood and how it has been a process of reclamation and renewal of that very catholic doctrine and practice.  It is not a matter of one side winning or another losing but of the constant state of reformation that goes on as we know what we confess and judge how we practice that confession in the most faithful manner.  Doctrinal and liturgical minimalism were never the hallmarks of our Lutheran identity although the whole idea of adiaphora has been used to justify less as the more we were fighting for all along.  When and if Lutheranism grows up out of its rebellion against its own confession and the practice consistent with that confession, we will have something to offer to the Romans who find their communion more papal sectarianism than the full catholic expression of the faith and we will have something to offer those Protestants of various stripes who face up to the vacuity within their historic and modern structures that fail even to preserve the form much less the substance of creedal and Biblical Christianity.  But until Lutheranism grows up to embrace what we first confessed, we will continue to be also rans among those looking for a faithful home for a vibrant, orthodox, and authentic Christian faith.  Until then, we better hope that our congregations and institutional strength is enough to help us persevere to that day when we are ready to be who we said we are at Augsburg.