JW January 14, 2016 Paul Koch

The Lie of Confessional Subscription and the Rise of the Bureaucrat

“Do you believe and confess the three Ecumenical Creeds, namely the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds, as faithful testimonies to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and do you reject all the errors which they condemn?”

Yes, I believe and confess the three Ecumenical Creeds because they are in accord with the Word of God. I also reject all the errors they condemn.

“Do you confess the Unaltered Augsburg Confession to be a true exposition of Holy Scripture and a correct exhibition of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church? And do you confess that the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Small and Large Catechisms of Martin Luther, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and the Formula of Concord—as these are contained in the Book of Concord—are also in agreement with this one scriptural faith?”

Yes, I make these Confessions my own because they are in accord with the Word of God.

“Do you promise that you will perform the duties of your office in accordance with these Confessions, and that all your preaching and teaching and your administration of the Sacraments will be in conformity with Holy Scripture and with these Confessions?”

Yes, I promise, with the help of God.

These are part of the weighty and formative questions put to a pastoral candidate in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod on the day of his ordination. Before a gathering of friends and family, before colleagues all wearing their red stoles (and looking very reverent), before a congregation of God’s children he makes his bold answers loud and proud for all to hear. “Yes, I make these Confessions my own because they are in accord with the Word of God.”

Now these vows are no light thing. They are not just something said one time and quickly forgotten. The ordination vows dealing with the Confessions of the church in fact do give shape and substance to the ministry of a called and ordained servant of the Word. We hold to the Confessions because they are in accord with the Word. We joyfully embrace them as faithful guide into the heart of Scripture. They are not a fearful whip keeping pastors in line but a blessed light that shows the way, always driving us to the proclamation of Christ alone.

But I fear we have believed a lie about our subscription to the Confessions. Now it is not a lie found in the ordination rite itself. It’s not that pastors have been tricked into saying something we don’t fully believe. Rather, there is this common conception of what a group of congregations that subscribe the Confessions, along with a group of pastors that also subscribe, ought to look like. The lie has to do with walking together, with joyfully receiving all who have likewise confessed as a brother or sister in the faith. We will find freedom and confidence springing from our confessional subscription, but the lie is that we will find unity as well.

The reality is that our confessional subscription seems to leave room for a wide variety of manifestations of the visible church. I may not care for the way the church down the street puts together it’s “creative worship” nor the smells and bells of the high church practices a few towns over but that doesn’t mean those congregations or their pastors are not confessional Lutherans. But we can’t seem to let this simply be the state of things. After all, we’ve all made the same confessional subscription. Yet we find inconsistency and discrepancy that constantly rocks the boat and challenges the status quo. So, we demand some form of unity.

Perhaps it’s just a lingering desire for the days when everyone followed pages 5 and 15 from The Lutheran Hymnal. But we’ve created and perpetuated a lie about what confessional subscription means. The greatest benefactors of this lie is also the greatest indicator of its prevalent status – the church bureaucrat.

The function of bureaucracy is to mitigate variance, to bring uniformity, and generally keep the boat steady. Those who subscribe to the Confessions because they are in accord with the Word of God begin to turn to the bureaucrats to bring uniformity around such a subscription. The bureaucrats perpetuate the lie, but the tools available to them are quite limited. Not that they are without great power, it’s just that they don’t have very many options. They can teach and inspire, but such things take time. Such options may not be tolerated from those who are to protect us from variance. Rather the best way to bring uniformity is to regulate our choices under bureaucratic control. Sure, we may sacrifice freedom but we lessen the risk of wandering astray.

And so the joy of our confessional subscription begins to look like an authoritative church structure that promises to fulfill the unity that our Confessions never quite obtained.

In the end we are left arguing over what bureaucratic enterprise is in the right, which authority has the power, and whether or not someone is confessional enough. We’ve turned the freedom of confessional concord into threats of power and control. We’ll happily argue over the scraps from the bureaucrats table when we’ve long since stopped reading the Confessions themselves. But hey, at least we’ll be walking together…

12Comments

Add yours

1

John J Flanagan on January 14, 2016 at 6:53 am

The Confessions reaffirm what the word of God teaches us. They should not become a legalistic bureaucratic measure of compliance to be used as a way to control others and determine if a pastor or church member is “confessional” enough. Having said that, we must realize that those who stray far from what the Confessions declare will usually stray from the Bible itself. Then, in my view, apart from belief in the substantive truths of the Confessions, one has voluntarily become cast away from the central Christian value to which we have been bound for hundreds of years.

Loading...
2

Don Moore on January 14, 2016 at 7:18 am

I suppose that the bureaucracy of this church body only has power or feels need because many of us stop looking at those confessions that we subscribed to be true at some point, after seminary study. The alternative to bureaucratic enforcement would seem to be a more frequent look at those books we knew were true once, to find a way back to good practice – neither perfect nor even invariably unified, but perhaps good. I think this is an ideal solution, meaning based in an idealistic view; but it is the way the church should work. After all, LCMS pastors are unlikely to scoff at these documents, because we know they are good, even if we forgot what’s there. The same could be said for scriptural adherence. I know that pastors do spend time looking at scripture for their various tasks, but there was a time when we knew better in Greek and Hebrew. Admittedly, I find some personal reward in that kind of study – I’m pretty good at that stuff (less so with systematics). Still, it is always the best resource for understanding, and therefore, practicing what is in the scriptures. In any case, I like that approach, as we all do, better than forced adherence to what we have forgotten.

Loading...
3

festus on January 14, 2016 at 12:32 pm

This is such poppycock! Pastor, please take some time to educate yourself. I’ve included some links below.

The authors of the Confessions most certainly valued, treasured, and even mandated(!) liturgical uniformity. Perhaps no sooner than the ink began to dry on the Confessional pages that they penned, they immediately turned into bureaucrats!!!

Or, alternatively, perhaps you’re reading of the Confessions is out of context and much like a fundamentalist. Are you not aware that Luther himself taught that we have liturgical freedom before God, but that we ought to bind ourselves to one form out of love for another? Are you not aware of the church orders the Confessors themselves put in place for the sake of liturgical uniformity? If you dare, enjoy the education below, it will require you to acknowledge and own your departure from the Lutheran fathers – or – repent of the drivel you’ve written above.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/mychurchwebsite/c2001/a_christian_exhortation_to_the_livonians_martin_luther.pdf

https://www.cph.org/p-26462-chemnitzs-works-volume-9-church-order.aspx

http://steadfastlutherans.org/2009/08/liturgical-uniformity-and-church-polity-in-the-augsburg-confession-and-the-formula-of-concord-a-great-article-by-matt-harrison-for-understanding-the-worship-debate/

Loading...
- 4
  
  pastorkoch on January 14, 2016 at 12:48 pm
  
  I think you just proved the point of the article. For the time being I’ll refrain from repenting of my drivel. Thank you though for the concern.
  
  Loading...
  - 5
    
    festus on January 14, 2016 at 1:00 pm
    
    You wrote:
    “The reality is that our confessional subscription seems to leave room for a wide variety of manifestations of the visible church. I may not care for the way the church down the street puts together it’s “creative worship” nor the smells and bells of the high church practices a few towns over but that doesn’t mean those congregations or their pastors are not confessional Lutherans. But we can’t seem to let this simply be the state of things. After all, we’ve all made the same confessional subscription. Yet we find inconsistency and discrepancy that constantly rocks the boat and challenges the status quo. So, we demand some form of unity”
    
    “Perhaps it’s just a lingering desire for the days when everyone followed pages 5 and 15 from The Lutheran Hymnal. But we’ve created and perpetuated a lie about what confessional subscription means. The greatest benefactors of this lie is also the greatest indicator of its prevalent status – the church bureaucrat.”
    
    So the Confessors were “bureaucrats” in mandating their own version of pages 5 and 15???
    
    Loading...
  - 6
    
    pastorkoch on January 14, 2016 at 1:47 pm
    
    Still not following your line of argumentation. The point of the article was that Confessional subscription does not provide the unity and so bureaucracy arises to fill the gap. All bureaucracy thrives by limiting variance and so our hope for unity has moved from a faithful Confessional subscription to a bureaucracy that oversees those who subscribe (both pastors and congregations). From what I can tell by your arguments so far is that you are in full agreement with my point and believe that it should be so and in fact it has always been so. Fine, but that doesn’t disprove the point of the article.
    
    Look, I don’t know if the Confessors were bureaucrats or not. I’m sure some were and in fact I bet some were damn good ones. But still that doesn’t negate the argument of my post.
    
    Loading...
7

festus on January 14, 2016 at 2:17 pm

Because you think that the Confessions grant congregations carte blanche liturgical freedom, you then see any attempt to unify liturgical practice as “bureaucratic” and apart from, or, in addition to the Confessions.

The Confessions do not grant this carte blanche liturgical freedom to congregations, thus the Confessors are applying the Confessions themselves when they mandate uniformity of liturgical practice.

When the Confessors mandate liturgical uniformity they are not acting as “bureaucrats,” they are acting as pastors who are faithful to the Scriptural and Confessional principle of love (specifically, love that necessitates liturgical uniformity).

If you had troubled yourself to read the links from Luther or Harrison that I posted above, you would be able to follow my argument just fine. You would also see that what you wrote above is in substantial disagreement with the way the Confessors viewed the teaching of the Confessions in regard to liturgical uniformity.

Loading...
- 8
  
  pastorkoch on January 14, 2016 at 3:21 pm
  
  Slow down there law dog. First, you seem to know an awful lot about what I think (can you guess what I’m thinking right now?). Second, I’ve read Luther’s delightful letter to Livonians before. It is full of cherished pastoral wisdom regarding church practice for the sake of the layity motivated by loves “submission and service.” And I’ve always appreciated Harrison’s insights and counsel on such matters, especially his “It’s Time” paper from 2008. I don’t think you are making their arguments nor do I think their writings substantiate your claims about me or what I’ve written. I would love to hear you make your own argument. For instance what exactly do you mean by a “love that necessitates liturgical uniformity”? Where do yo see this happening today?
  
  I still think you are making my argument for me. Confessional subscription alone has not given us liturgical uniformity, or unity in many other areas for that matter.
  
  Loading...
  - 9
    
    festus on January 15, 2016 at 10:13 am
    
    I’m not reading your mind, I’m reading your post above … Lawdog … Lol.
    
    You wrote: “The reality is that our confessional subscription seems to leave room for a wide variety of manifestations of the visible church. I may not care for the way the church down the street puts together it’s “creative worship” nor the smells and bells of the high church practices a few towns over but that doesn’t mean those congregations or their pastors are not confessional Lutherans.”
    
    This is why I wrote that you think the Confessions grant carte blanche liturgical freedom to congregations, namely, because you do! And that is the foundation upon which you build your post.
    
    If you understood Luther’s letter to the Livonians you would also understand that such diversity in liturgical practice is not at all in keeping with the Lutheran Confessions or the practice of the Confessors themselves. Our liturgical diversity is indeed a mark of our lovelessness and our collective failure to be Confessional! But, quite contrary to Luther, you assure us that such diversity “doesn’t mean those congregations or their pastors are not confessional Lutherans.” Lol.
    
    Then you write: “I would love to hear you make your own argument. For instance what exactly do you mean by a “love that necessitates liturgical uniformity”? Where do yo see this happening today?”
    
    Again, if you understood Luther’s letter to the Livonians you would see that Christian love means that we set aside our disagreements and unite in liturgical uniformity. Of course I do not see liturgical uniformity today! And this is precisely because we lack the love that Luther and the Confessors had. Instead of love manifested in unity, we’ve settled for the garbage perspective of love equals: “hey, you do it your way, I’ll do it mine, all of us are still confessional – and, anyway, if we aren’t liturgically united its because the Confessions simply can’t get us there!’ Which is basically your essay. Lol.
    
    This is like arguing that because Christendom is doctrinally divided, nonetheless, we’re all still Bible-believing Christians – and, anyway, if we aren’t doctrinally united its because the Bible simply can’t get us there!”
    
    Stop blaming the Confessions for our lack of liturgical unity and start blaming those who lovelessly imported sectarian worship forms into our communion!
    
    Loading...
10

Jean on January 14, 2016 at 6:29 pm

Pastor Koch,

I’ve read enough of your blog articles to confidently say to anyone that you embrace the Word of God as explicated by the Confessions. Please continue, despite the personal attacks, to add your voice to the voices discussing the future of confessional Lutheranism in America. I hope for the sake of sinners here in America that a confessional Lutheran tradition which majors in the majors is allowed to continue the work of electing sinner to the kingdom of God through the preaching of Law and Gospel.

Loading...
- 11
  
  pastorkoch on January 15, 2016 at 9:13 am
  
  Jean, thank you for your kind words. I’ve grown quite thick skin over the years but it always feels good to hear a voice of reassurance from time to time.
  
  Loading...
12

hlewis on January 15, 2016 at 10:38 am

Pastor Koch.

I can’t think I’ve heard a non-confessional word on this blog. You’ve always taken a faithful stance. One of the beauties of the Confessions and Lutheran theology, in general, ids that it doesn’t produce long-winded pronouncements of what is known or that reason dictates it must be. We can actually memorize our catechism but I daresay it’s not the same Reformed or Catholic documents. In fact, the Small Catechism, being the essentials of simple, saving faith and Christian living, leaves form to an other than doctrinal place in our lives.

I feel your frustration and I think we agree that the unity promised by the Confessions is not in form but in faith. We have to remember that the Church is larger than the Confessions. That, in Christ, the Church includes the heterodox and we are untied in Christ with all Christians, first. It is to be hoped that all disciples, once taught our confession will see the truth but God saves, nonetheless. All that we do and confess touches all of the Church and proceeds from the past, from before our confessions were written, and touches our brethren in other denominations.

Within the context of the Confessions there is, in my opinion, a tension (unresolved argument) between loyalty to human tradition and rites with Christian freedom that is often ignored by these bureaucrats. Again, in my opinion, their arguments:

1) Attempt to dogmatize form
2) Tend, ironically, toward the hierarchical descent of the early Church into Roman/ Papal hegemony.

The Roman Rite cannot lay claim to being the oldest or the most authentic expression of ordered Christian worship. Theologians who comment on the Confessions and the Church ought to proceed from this. Luther’s German Mass, itself was a departure of which he said:

“Still, I do not wish hereby to demand that those who already have a good Order or, by God’s grace, can make a better, should let it go, and yield to us. Nor is it my meaning that the whole of Germany should have to adopt forthwith our Wittenberg Order. It never was the case that the ministers, convents, and parishes were alike in everything.” and “But, above all, the Order is for the simple and for the young folk who must daily be exercised in the Scripture and God’s Word…”

In other words the order serves a purpose, it is not served by us and is not intended to provide a unity across all of the Church or even all of the Synod over a large area with cultural diversity.

But, I am sure you know this and I love hearing you get passionate about this. I find many other faults in those looking for unity of form, but I’ll hold back. As long as we seek unity in doctrine and unity in Christ, we are where we need to be.

That said, pg 5 & 15 provided a thorough, public proclamation of what we believe. Repetition is also a teaching tool and we learned doctrine from the words spoken. There is history and tradition in the order that is being taken too lightly, these days. I have been to services which omit: absolution in favor of confessional prayer (ala Reformed/ Evangelical tradition), Creed, Sanctus (I guess singing with all the company of heaven is irrelevant), no Agnus Dei, no Kyrie, no Nunc Dimmitis. Praise songs do not always stand in for hymns. My issue is that, if any part of this is arbitrary, it’s all arbitrary. If we can keep saying the Lord’s Prayer (arbitrarily) in the old language (arbitrarily), why not the rest of it?

So, where the opponents of change are correct, in my opinion, is that no one has substituted new forms which are effective and proper for the old forms. Where I find both sides in error, mostly the contemporary side, is that it often becomes an issue of aesthetics and emotions. Contemporary folks seem to want to express themselves and feelings to each other, not hear god expressed to them, and want to have things which identify with their aesthetics. Neither of these is appropriate to worship. Then there’s the myth that contemporary is for the young. But, at least in my church, the fans of the Newsboys and the bulk of the “praise team” are all over 40 and the biggest fans of contemporary worship are retirees and people who did not grow up in a church with any Catholic tradition. A proper service takes us from our unworthiness to salvation, from our need to the gifts of God in Word and Sacrament. If we abandon repeated forms, we need to expend time and effort better spent in ministry assembling doctrinally correct and effective new orders each week. We need to weight unvetted praises because we are avoiding the hymnal to make some people feel good about the way the music sounds. We’re making church more about the people in the pews and how they feel toward God, less about God and His feelings toward us.

In the end, while there is no true unity to be found in form, the form is important and there has to be some civil discussion on its value apart from unity. I don’t see that happening in the Synod and wish it would.

Loading...

·Comments are closed.

The Jagged Word

The Lie of Confessional Subscription and the Rise of the Bureaucrat

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: