Presented April 22 -23, 1996 at the Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA Annual Conference held at St. Matthew Lutheran Church Indianapolis, Indiana by Pastor Roy A. Steward (Current President of the Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America (ELCM).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Indifference/ hostility to Doctrine, Confessions and prescribed Liturgy is found not only outside the Church but also within the Church.
C. Desire for "Individual Freedom to believe and do as each desires and sees fit is one source of the prevailing modern indifference and hostility toward Doctrine, Confessions, and prescribed Liturgy.
D. Desire for organizational unity grounded in "Least common denominator's" is a second source of modern indifference and hostility toward Doctrine, Confession, and prescribed Liturgy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Christian Doctrine or Dogma, Confessions and Liturgy are thus a series of specific statements about what the Christian Church believes and about what we as individual members of the church believe to be true about Jesus. These are specific statements accepted as authoritative because they lift up the central teachings of the Word of God. The basic doctrines, confessions, dogma, and Liturgy will not change as long as there continue to be believers who believe in the Scripture as God's Word and in Jesus as the Christ of God, the fulfillment of all the Scripture.
As Biblical Lutheran Christians we believe that in order for a doctrine, dogma, creed, confession, or liturgical usage to be true and authoritative it must be based upon and grounded in Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura).
Writes Dr. Luther:
At a number of councils articles of faith were elucidated by Scripture, as happened at Nicea, and some things were laid down , drawn out of Scripture and based on Scripture. To hold to these is the same as holding to the Word of God." (On The Councils and the Churches - 1539, LW 41, 136) W. A. Quanbeck, in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Vol 1 p. 668) cites several factors leading to the need for Confessions (doctrine, dogma, Creed, Liturgy) in the early Christian Church:
1. Need for Catechetical Instruction.
This was especially the case for Adult Converts preparing for Holy Baptism.
2. The need for Worship Content - Liturgy and Hymnody that would teach and bring to remembrance the basics of the faith. (1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 15:3-7)
Repetitive worship introduced the basics of Christian Faith to God-fearers attending worship and re-enforced the basic teachings in the lives of believers. as a form of ongoing catechesis (teaching). "Worship" like the Apostle Paul thus delivers on or passes on what has been first received.
3. Persecution presented the need to have a clear focus of Faith so that in the hour of Martyrdom one could make a good confession.
4. Growth of Heresy brought strong reactions i.e., 1 John 4:2-3, 1 John 4:15; IIJohn 7.
The need was to make it very clear what was and is the true Biblical center of Christian Faith. The Athanasian Creed wording serves as a good example.
"Whoever wants to be saved should think thus...........
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that..........
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully." (LBW 1978 Fortress Press P. 54) Essentially, the main factor behind all Christian Confession, Doctrine, Dogma, Creed, and Liturgy is Catechesis. It is to teach and to bring to remembrance the basic center of the Christian Faith as found in the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God alone makes it (Confession, Creed, Doctrine, Dogma, Liturgy) authoritative and all such are for the purpose of establishing and maintaining " True Unity" within the Church - a unity which is based upon the pure gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.
The second main thrust behind the Confessions, Doctrinal formulations, dogmas, creeds and Liturgy is Witness. Jesus is himself the great example, "Who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession." 1 Tim 6:13.
The act of Witness or Confession - saying "This I believe" or "This We believe" based upon Scripture alone does divide. The title suggests that Doctrine, Confession and Liturgy can divide but in truth the accurate phrase is "does divide". Such division is, however, always with the ultimate hope and aim of uniting before the Cross of Christ Jesus. Writes Quanbeck in his Interpreters Dictionary article:
"Jesus Confronts his disciples with the necessity of choice: They cannot serve both God and Mammon. (Matt 6:24)
There are many other passages that could likewise be cited where Jesus is very specific, for example:
"Whoever acknowledges me ( shall confess me) before men, I will also acknowledge (Him will I confess) him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns (denies) me before men I will disown him (him will I deny) before my Father in heaven" ( Matt. 10:33 ff) In the February 1996 issue of Lutheran Forum Magazine a Missouri Synod Pastor responding to an article by former LC-MS President , Pr. Ralph Bohlmann decries some of the specific lessons that Jesus sets forth stating that ,
" In Glib summary (and not to be taken literally )", [Gospel pericope lessons for the fall of 1995] "have portrayed Jesus as an arsonist/ division-causer (13th Sunday after Pentecost), excluder from the Kingdom (14th Sunday), preacher of hatred for families and relatives (16th), and virtual commender of dishonesty (18th)." (Lutheran Forum Vol 30, No 1 pg 20 "Bohlmann and the 44: A Response" by Paul L. Maier.) I understand that the pastor is trying to lift up the goal of unity and prefers passages that are "filled with gospel promise and hope". He is concerned that the above mentioned Gospel selections "seemed almost designed to have our laity misunderstand the Gospel!". He then goes on to stress that overemphasis of the divine aspect of the Old and New Testaments courts the danger of Bibliolatry. I went back and re-read this paragraph several times because I couldn't believe that I was reading such a comment from a Missouri Pastor. Bibliolatry is a word heard increasingly whenever Liberals confront those who emphasize Sola Scriptural as God's Inerrant and infallible word.
So on the one hand Doctrine, Liturgy, Confession unite a group of people in a church (Congregation and Larger Body or movement) around a certain set of central Scripture based beliefs. We are not talking Bibliolatry trivia here - we are talking about Central Teachings of Holy Scripture. These Unite many!
But on the other hand these Doctrines, Confessions, and Liturgy ( like Holy Scripture itself - like the very Word of Jesus), divide that church (that movement of believers) from all others holding to conflicting beliefs, allegiances and ways which do not appear to be supported by the witness of Scripture. Each Church group or Religion believes its set of Doctrine, Confession, Dogma, Liturgy to be the true and pure set of faith and order. Unfortunately throughout history various groups and movements have gone to war in order to impose their views upon others. Sadly Christian Churches have been involved in such warfare down through the centuries. Religious wars have been embedded in modern consciousness and the desire to avoid reoccurrence of such is partly behind the push to achieve least common denominator unity among all world religions.
People have often said to me:
"I don't see why all the different churches can't get together and get along. After all we all believe in the same God and we are all trying to get to the same place, aren't we? Our Worship seems almost the same so why aren't we united?" and "Isn't it possible there are many different roads to the same place?"
To the latter question the basic Ecumenical Christian Confessions say, No! There is one way, one truth, and one Life, namely Jesus Christ and ultimately at his name every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. That understanding when lifted up makes Christianity somewhat of a pariah to the least common denominator efforts. For the desire is to treat Jesus as just one among many historical religious leaders and Christianity as just one among many different roads to the same place. The most recent example I have seen came in the mail just three days before our Conference. Publishers Weekly prints a twice-monthly newspaper for religious types and I decided to subscribe just as one source of information about what is going on in certain religious circles. Already I have been astounded as people like the Jesus Seminar folk are given great prominence. At any rate in the April 16, 1996 publication there is a multi book review of works by church folk and works by members of the scientific community with the heading that "Science and Religion meet across the Great Divide" and the sub heading "New Books forge links between the Scientific and the Theological". The closing paragraph of the article is very revealing especially the last line in the paragraph as it describes the relationship between religion and science as summarized by John Steinbeck in Log of the Sea of Cortez and reads as follows :
"And it is a strange thing that most of the feeling we call religious...is really the understanding and the attempt to say that man is related to the whole thing, related inextricably to all reality, known and unknowable. This is a simple thing to say, but a profound feeling of it made a Jesus, a St. Augustine, a Roger Bacon, a Charles Darwin, and an Einstein." ( "Science and Religion meet across The Great Divide", by Henry Carrigan pg 3)
Notice how Steinbeck , certainly representing our present day secular culture, reduces Jesus to one made who he was by a profound feeling of the interconnectedness of all reality. Certainly this is quite a departure from Biblical understanding of who Jesus is. In the search and drive for unity the least common denominator is "profound feeling". One wonders what an "un-profound feeling" might be like. Mr. Carrigan uses the word Synthesizing" to describe the process of coming together between science and religion and reports that one of the leaders in the effort forSynthesizingg Unity among religion and science is Fortress Press. Synthetic is I believe defined as "artificial" and thus to be distinguished from what is "natural".
Thus the believer in Central and basic Biblical Teaching (Doctrine, Confession, Creed, Dogma, Liturgy) will be viewed as being narrow and thus divided from the supposed broad minded. Who do you say that I am, asks our Lord of us? We say "Jesus is Lord and Christ!" others say he is one of a number (Augustine, Roger Bacon, Charles Darwin, Einstein, et. al.) who were made who they were "by a profound feeling" of the interconnectedness of all reality. These are two radically different Confessions. The way is narrow, and few travel, it that leads to the Kingdom. The other path is broad and doesn't head to the same place at all and sad to say many are they who follow it.
In answer to the Initial Question "Why can't the churches get along and be united - we all worship the same God - and aren't we all trying to get to the same place?". It is not apparent that all the different churches truly believe in the same God or in the centrality of the Biblically based doctrines. I had a very good friend in College who was preparing for enrollment in a Methodist Seminary who used to kid me about our Worship differences. He loved to remark that When we Lutherans and the Methodists were confessing our Faith in the Words of the Apostles Creed at the same approximate time at Sunday morning worship that while we Lutheran's "descended into Hell" at that very moment the Methodists were "ascending into heaven." Now that seems like a minor difference in Liturgy but indeed there are major differences in Biblical understanding.
All are not trying to get to the same Place. In our banter I would reply that while the Methodists were trying to perfect their holiness and achieve an inner experience in order to get to heaven we Lutherans had the assurance of Word and Sacrament that we would already be in heaven. There is an eternity of difference between a God who rewards those who work the hardest and a God who suffers and dies on the Cross for the sake of people incapable of living totally perfect and pure lives of Faith obedience and service. Truly if anyone could have achieved this it would have been the Pharisees and the Monks. We know what Luther has to say about all such efforts. Doctrine, Confession, Creed, Dogma, Liturgy - all based on Scripture alone make it clear which God is worshipped. The One True God who raised Jesus from the dead for our Justification or the "Apple-god". Writes Luther in the Explanation to the First Commandment in the Large Catechism:
"As I have often said, the trust and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true God. On the other hand, if your trust is false and wrong, then you have not the true God. (LC, Tappert pg 365, 2-3)
The Confessions, doctrines, dogma, creeds, Liturgy that focus upon the true center of Biblical faith keep believers from drifting into the practice that Luther regards as the greatest of dangers, namely:
"Everyone making into a god that to which his heart inclined. Even in the mind of all the heathen, therefore to have a god means to trust and believe. The trouble is that their trust is false and wrong, for it is not founded upon the One God, apart from whom there is truly no god in heaven or on earth." (Ibid Pg. 367, 18) So although it may look, on the surface, like everyone is worshipping the same God. Such is not the case and a clear division needs to be set forth for the sake of Unity among the Christian faithful and for the sake of Witness to those who really hold to other understandings.
Again in the Large Catechism discussion of the first Commandment, Dr. Luther becomes very explicit in describing the need to distinguish between those calling themselves "Christian" and those worshipping the one and only true God:
"There is moreover another false worship. This is the greatest idolatry that has been practiced up to now, and it is still prevalent in the world. Upon it all the religious orders are founded. It concerns only that conscience which seeks help, comfort, and salvation in its own works and presumes to wrest heaven from God. It keeps account how often it has made endowments, fasted, celebrated Mass, etc., On such things it relies and of them it boasts, unwilling to receive anything as a gift from God but desiring by itself to earn, or merit everything by works of supererogation, just as if God were in our service or debt and we were his liege lords. What is this but making God into an idol - indeed an "Apple-god" (Apfelgott) - and setting up ourselves as God?" (Ibid Pg. 367, 22-23.)
These words of Dr. Luther are just as true for today, I believe, as they were when he wrote them in 1528. Perhaps they are even more true. To the list of religious reward seeking activity Luther mentions (i.e., endowments, fasting, celebrating mass, etc.,) could be added categories such as "Ecumenical discussions for organizational unity, establishment of Political /Social Agendum", etc.
Do all who call themselves "Christian" or "Religious" believe in the same God? Are all working to get to the same place? The answer, I believe, is "No" on both counts and thus there is a need for a Catechetical reminder of what is truly Biblically central and true to Christian faith. If there is a failure among Lutherans it is precisely in communicating these Central Confessional truths to the Laity in understandable ways. Far too often the discussions are limited just to the Clergy. A regular preaching of the Catechism is important and goes a good way toward fostering unity with the congregation as well as making it clear to all just what we stand for and believe in.
Thus with Doctrine, Liturgy, Confession - They not only can be divisive - indeed they are divisive of those who are truly holding to the central Biblical basics of Christian Faith from those who have wandered away from what is indeed central. This kind of divisiveness is not a bad thing for it serves to unite the faithful and then as the possibility and opportunity for Witness to the unfaithful and the non-Christian.
W.A. Quanbeck wrote the following definition of Confession (Which is valid for all Biblically based Christian doctrine, creed, dogma and Liturgy) :
"Confession is an affirmation of the historical character of God's redeeming deed in Jesus Christ; Commitment to the Lordship of Jesus with all its risks; and rejection of all intellectualistic, moralistic, and mythological interpretations of the Christ Event." (Op. Cit. Pg. 668) and as Bernhard Lohse writes in his Brief History of Christian Doctrine :
"Dogmas and Confessions are thus, in the strictest sense, subject to Holy Scripture. They must be tested in the light of Scripture and interpreted with reference to it. On the other hand, it is also true that Confessions and Dogmas are meant to offer guidance toward a right understanding of Scripture by warning against certain conceptions and by setting forth the center of the Biblical Message.: (Op Cit. Pg 14)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe this disillusionment has increased as the mainline churches distanced themselves from Central Biblical Truths. When the authority of Scripture as the Inerrant and Infallible Word of God was undermined it of course had an undermining effect upon all Doctrine, Dogma, Confession, Creed, and Liturgy as based and grounded in Scripture alone. The Jesus Seminar folk (Father Curran et. al.) are given a great deal of attention and people caught up in their words begin to question the reliability of the Word. Instead getting in touch with your own " profound feelings" is held up as an alternative assurance. Folk who are cut loose from understanding and believing the central and basic teachings of God's Word are driven into Smorgasbord Religious consumerism where they in effect drift according to what they feel to be meaningful to them at any given time or moment in life. Although the Church Organization (s) have sought to become the new "Authority" the Individual Self has become the real Authority in life for most modern people. The reality of Self Experience as authoritative has, I believe, become dominant and is in good part what propels the various religious and irreligious movements of our day. A movement such as "The Charismatic movement" for example as we talked last year is essentially a drive for authoritative self experience and Assurance of Salvation through profound feeling and extraordinary self experience.
The churches main effort seems to be to attract people rather than to preach, teach, and speak the truth. If a church emphasizes speaking, teaching, and proclaiming the truth of God's Word alone it is often accused of not desiring to grow. The effort by many to grow for the sake of growth has encouraged the modern understanding of the "Individual self" as the definer of what is central to the faith. Thus hear and read a good bit of talk about "identifying needs" in order to provide programs and ministries that will attract people to the church. As I read Scripture, I do not find this "Needs assessment evangelism church growth model" set forth.
The prophets of Israel and the Apostles of Jesus do not begin with a "Canvassing Survey" or a "Needs Survey" of the wider public before preaching and proclaiming the central truth of God's Word.
I have a delightful little cartoon with me that I will make available for all to see after the presentation. It was created in 1991 by a Mr. Rob Suggs and printed in "Leadership" magazine several years ago.
The Cartoon has the Title: "Rekindling an Old Flame". and clearly intends the message to emphasize the need to rekindle true faith in God and in His Word. The Caption at the bottom of the cartoon defines the target audience that need a rekindling of True Faith and reads "Yuppies of the Old Testament". Of course "Yuppy" is a modern classification. And so we get the further context: namely the question, "How do we rekindle in the modern Yuppie generations who have drifted away or who have been cut loose from understanding God's Word of Scripture and Its Central teachings as lifted up in doctrine, Confession, and Liturgy?
"Cut loose" is a very intentional phrase for all too often Young people went away to college and took required college religion courses even in Lutheran Colleges which undermined all sense of the Scripture as being God's trustworthy and dependable Word. Or how often have you heard members of the church say - we are not going bring our children regularly to church until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves. I have been told that line more often than I care to admit. How do we rekindle Faith that the central Christian Beliefs are authoritative - that is to say trustworthy and true for those who are adrift or who have been cut loose? Of course the true Lutheran Christian answer is that we don't rekindle anyones faith - we simply preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments and God's Holy Spirit does the rekindling. The challenge is to make sure that we preach and teach clearly the central basics of Holy Scripture.
Back to the Cartoon by Mr. Suggs - "Rekindling an Old Flame"; "Yuppies of the Old Testament" and there pictured in the Cartoon is a bearded Old Testament Prophet who has knocked on the door of a Israeli home and the head of the house has come to the door dressed in modern Greco-Roman garb. The Old Testament Prophet is asking questions and recording the answers on a Clay Tablet that is labeled "Survey". So the further message is clear - the Prophet hasn't had the turnout of people coming to hear him that he would like and so he is canvassing and doing a need assessment survey in order to tailor his message so that he can reach out and make the Great Congregation of Israel grow with the presence of folks with a rekindled Old Flame of faith". He wants to reach those modern Israelis who have drifted away or who have been cut loose.
The Head of the House being interviewed by the prophet responds as Follows:
"We don't have, like, one religion or anything, but we go to the Philistines sometimes, tho' I have to say we like the sacrifices better over at the Baal Temple, and our kids like the Ammonite youth activities, and....." That is a response that is very familiar to every Pastor. When I saw this cartoon I thought "How True!!". How true it is to modern Life ! People centered in their own self experience desiring only that which entertains or meets a perceived need. Entertainment becomes authoritative rather than the truth of central Christian teaching. Thus free form contemporary worship is preferred over a prescribed liturgy which teaches (Catechizes) and reminds week after week the faithful of the central basics of their Christian Faith. Individual ecstasy and good feeling are sought as authoritative assurance rather than God's Word and Sacraments.
Doctrine, Liturgy, Confessions that are rooted in Scripture alone and which convey the central basics of true Christian faith will thus divide believers from entertainment seekers.
German historian/ Theologian Bernhard Lohse in his book Short History of Christian Doctrine (Epochen der Dogmengeschicte) 1963 Kreuz-Verlag, Stuttgart) points to the drive beginning just before World War II and in the years following "both inside and outside the Christian Church to establish a Christianity free of dogma" (Free of Doctrine, Creed, Confession, prescribed Liturgy). Lohse point out that a major reason behind this effort from within the Church (In Germany especially) was the desire for the Church to re-capture (Cartoon caption - "Rekindle") the supposed sense of freedom of the early Christian Church (pg. 1)
Curiously - in the German Church this desire within scholarly church circles to recapture the freedom of the early Christian Church coincided with the efforts of the National Socialist Movement (NAZI) which writes Lohse, "In its initial dealings with the church" declared its "ostensible purpose to de-confessionalize it". This was done for the sake of Unity within the country. Basically, this was the same model as the earlier Prussian Union. Thus writes Lohse, "National Socialism opposed particularly what it regard as the Church's outmoded loyalty to antiquated dogmas and Confessions." (Op Cit Translated by F.E. Stoeffler, 1966 Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Pg. 1)
Unity of organization or Institution was desired by the "State" - Prussian and then Nazi (In Germany) for the sake of harmony (Unity) within the State and this had nothing to do with the Truth of the Central Christian beliefs. Unity was at a premium while divisiveness was viewed as essentially unpatriotic. In some sense modern cultural views growing out of the melting pot concept hold forth the same premise and goal. Church unity in organization was viewed as a means for control by the State. A unified church would purport to have a greater voice in Political Matters of the nation. [ This was an argument used to advance the merger of LCA, ALC, and AELC] but in the process would become more of a tool of the State and the Culture rather than a witness to the Authoritative truth of God's Word alone.
The German Churchmen contributed significantly to the undermining of the basics of Christian Faith. Lohse is very forthcoming in admitting this to be true. He cites, for example, Adolf Von Harnack's perception that "the development of Dogma" [Doctrine, Confession, Creed, Prescribed Liturgy form] "as nothing but a process of decay which had led to the Hellenizing of Christianity (Ibid, pg 2). Hellenizing was a word used to describe the perverting of true Christianity from its original Hebrew or Aramaic understandings, total freedom of Faith, into Greek thinking. Lohse explains Harnack's view that "only by reversing the process of Confessions and Creeds (dogma) would it be possible " to achieve again the kind of undogmatic faith which he believed was characteristic of the Church and which alone was consonant with the nature of Christianity." (Opt Cit. pg 3).
Modern Church spokespersons don't sound all that different from Adolf Von Harnack. For example "Lutheran Forum Letter" March 1996 lifted up the remarks of ELCA Pr. Barbara Lundblad of Our Savior Atonement, New York. Pr. Lundblad who has several times been nominated to be presiding Bishop of the ELCA spoke to a pastor's conference in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania in November 1995 [ I was not invited] and was quoted in the Jan 1996 issue of "Christian Ministry" a publication of the Pennsylvania Council of Churches as saying:
"Creeds are hardly a litmus test so much as the residue from a particular struggle in the church many years ago." (Forum Letter Pg 3). With such notions as Von Harnack's and Lundblad's the Confessions, Doctrines, Creeds, Dogmas, and Prescribed Liturgy forms are certainly less than authoritative guides for Faith. Residue is not particularly authoritative. Authoritative Dogma setting forth the Central Biblical Basics of Christian Faith do stand in the way of those wishing freedom to do new and unbiblical things in the name of Christian Faith. This is I believe the reason for consigning all such to historical residue status. I believe I am correct that Lundblad was a speaker at the infamous Minneapolis-St. Paul Sophia Conference where a Milk and Honey Sacrament was celebrated. If I am accurate in this then it illustrates my point.
Lohse sets forth in his Introduction to his book what he believed to be the 3 main reasons for the modern desire within the Church to have a Christianity without dogma.
#1. The Premise that one can be a good and sincere Christian without believing in particular dogma. (Doctrine, Creed, Confession). [ In my mind this is very similar to the oft heard excuse given to Parish Pastors that one feels he or she can be a good Christian without gathering around the Word and Sacraments.]
Writes Lohse:
"This thought has been voiced repeatedly ever since the days of the more radical kind of Pietism typified by a man like Gottfried Arnold." (Op Cit, pg. 2)
Here Pietism - with its emphasis upon the individual inner experience clearly was a factor in the shift or drift of the "Authoritative" away from the Confessional emphasis upon the Central Biblical Basics of Faith to the focus upon the Individual Self Experience.
Lohse points to the Medical Missionary, Albert Schweitzer and to author Leo Tolstoy as examples of influential persons having a great impact upon modern thinking both of whom advocated moving away from dogmatic Christianity.
#2 The premise that dogma (Doctrine, Creed, Confession, Prescribed Liturgy Form) have all too often gown out of a particular situation which is unique and unrepeatable in its way and that such dogma is therefore historically contingent like everything else in the world. (Op Cit pg 2-3)
This would be the contemporary Liberal view - that everything including Holy Scripture is bound to its particular Cultural and Historical context and that what was true in that context may not be an absolute truth for today. Thus Christian Faith is to be a situational truth and cannot be based upon absolute Truth.
Lohse attempts to cite Luther as a would be supporter of this premise. Luther of course did insist on taking into consideration the context and the cultural setting for various dogma, doctrinal formula and Church Law. And Luther did challenge all that was not rooted and grounded in Scripture alone. However, for Luther it is finally Scripture alone which authenticates dogma (Creed, Confession, Doctrine, Liturgy). More specifically it is the Word of Jesus alone that authenticates the central basic doctrines of Faith. As already quoted from his statement concerning Councils and the Churches - When Confession, Doctrine, Dogma, etc. is grounded in Scripture such are to be believed as the Word itself.
Thus there is a dividing of believers in the Word and in its central basic absolute teachings from the Liberal who wants it all, for obvious self serving reasons, to be situational truth.
Lohse is helpful in pointing out that much of the history of dogma had been written primarily by critics of dogma and that the viewing of Doctrine, Confessions, Prescribed forms of Liturgy as "History" or as "Residue" of the past contributed a good bit to the modern attitude of seeing all of these as obsolete non essentials to modern Christianity.
#3 "The Premise that dogmas do not stand up well when compared with the Bible." (Op Cit.Pg 3)
Lohse explains that the reason for this perception "consists in the fact that the Bible uses personal categories while dogma's" [Confessions, Doctrines, Creeds, Prescribed Forms of Liturgy] "employ Ontological Concepts" [Concepts of being] "In the Bible man is confronted in his entire person by the proclamation of God's saving action in Jesus Christ. Dogmas on the other hand represent an attempt to define the Nature of God, or of Jesus Christ." (Op Cit Pg 2-4)
I believe that Lohse is overly concerned that Christianity be able to stand up under modern Criticism and I also believe that this emphasis upon Confessions, Doctrine, dogma etc. as being remote is not destined to be the case. For when and where Dogma serves as a companion to Scripture it truly is not remote discussion of Ontology. The Catechism, for example is after all not intended to be used just at the time when one becomes confirmed into the Church and it is not intended as a substitute for Scripture but as a complementary companion to Scripture. The Catechism or a Dogma would be better than nothing when one would not be able to have access to the Scripture but is not intended to be left on a shelf when Reading the Scripture. We read Scripture and review for example the doctrine of Justification and truly there is nothing remote about it. There is a deep assurance of faith which is from beyond me. It is the Objective Promise that I can count on it. He who believes and is Baptized shall be saved! Yes I have been baptized and Yes I believe that God was working in my Baptism and thus I have a very real assurance that is from outside of myself. Lots of Ontology is involved but lots of speaking to my whole person is there too. The Central meaning of the Biblical Word is spoken to me in the Doctrine of Justification and in the Catechism explanation of Holy Baptism.
Here again, Doctrine, Confessions, Dogma, Creed, Prescribed Form of Liturgy will divide the believer from the one intent upon critically disassembling the central truth of Scripture based Christian Faith. At the same time of Dividing, however, these will be a Witness to the culturally driven or surfing critic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secular culture emphasizes on the one hand the Individual and his self experience as the center and on the other had Church and State seek to encourage the Least Common denominator variety of Unity which allow for the widest parameters of Individual expression and practice. To a very large degree these two orientations have been brought into the Christian Churches. Where Doctrine, Confessions, Dogma, Creed, Prescribed form of Liturgy have been in usage division has been forth coming because these conveyors of Central basic Biblical Truth confront trust and reliance upon self experience and confront artificial unity based in the least Common Denominator understanding.
The Individual experience orientation needs little illustration. Its advocates are essentially seeking entertainment of one sort or another. They are seeking the authoritative for their own lives within themselves and within their own experience. Doctrine and Confession as well as a weekly Christian Liturgy will confront such an orientation as unbiblical and unchristian. It will thus divide but with the hope of bringing ultimate true unity at the foot of the Cross of Jesus.
The least Common Denominator unity effort is artificial. This is not the oneness that Jesus prays for his disciples in His High Priestly prayer. All believers should work toward unity based upon Scripture alone. Only this is genuine and true. Yet because of declining numbers of church-goers some of the churches are pushing to unite in one worldly church organization. This will give more clout with the Culture and with the Political entities, they claim. But when a least common denominator unity is achieved to push a particular or social agenda will unmask the facade of unity. In connectional type churches the unity may be essentially for control and to create a new sense of the authoritative which rests in the Organized Church. But this I believe is no substitute for God's Word and Dogma, Doctrine, Confession, Creed, Prescribed Liturgical Form which emphasize the central and basic teachings of God's Word.
But nonetheless the mainline churches have been moving in the direction of "Least Common Denominator" Unity. In the a March 9 Feature article in the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania daily newspaper The Headline read as follows: "Centuries after Martin Luther left the Roman Catholic Church, three denominations want to focus on what unites rather than divides". Some excerpts from the article are as follows: "Instead of being fragmented by religious Faith, we want to be unified by it.....Natural similarities in worship services and beliefs manifested by the Apostles Creed, unite Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopalians...."Christ did not find all these different churches. He founded one in the apostles....This is a growing gradual phenomenon."
It all sounds very good and certainly speaks to the desire of the comment I shared early in the paper - "Why can't all the churches get along. We all worship one God and aren't we all trying to get to the same place." Time of course will tell but I believe that "Least Common Denominator Unity efforts" will be long on organization and very short with God's Word.
"Who do you say that I am ?" will continue to be the question that counts for basic Unity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think we should do either.
I believe we should:
1. Redouble Catechesis efforts with the Laity and Pastors of the Church so that no one will be Cut Loose or left to drift away from what is central and basic to Christian Faith and grounded in Scripture alone.
2. No one joining our churches should have any doubts as to the basic and central teachings of Christian Faith.
3. Longtime as well as new members should be equipped to be able to make a "good Confession" should the opportunity arise.
4. Be faithful in our Preaching an teaching of that which we ourselves have received trusting and knowing that God himself will add the increase. Word and Sacrament ministry should be central to our Ministry for these very means of Grace are dependable, trustworthy and sure.
5. Be zealous for the establishment of Mission congregations. The disciples did not stay isolated in the upper room or distant from the wider community even though they knew their presence as well as their words would be divisive. They did not water down the proclamation or their Confession and they did not isolate themselves from the either the mission field or the vineyard.
6. Seek Unity with other Christians through discussion and dialogue of Doctrinal, Confessional, Dogmatic, Creedal, and Prescribed Liturgical form with the understanding that unity in the Central and basic Biblical teaching is true and genuine Unity in Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, W. A. Quanbeck article, 1962, Abingdon Press, Nashville Tenn.
Luther's Works, Vol 41, 1963 Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri.
The Book of Concord, Theodore G. Tappert, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA. 1959
The Lutheran Book of Worship, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA. 1978.
"Forum Letter", Volume 25 Number 3, March 1996 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, Delhi, New York 1996.
"Lutheran Forum" Vol. 30, Number 1 February 1996, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, Delhi, New York 1996.
"Religion Book Line", Vol. 1 Number 7, April 15,1996 , Publishers Weekly, New York, New York 1996.
"Leadership Magazine" 1991