Do the Lutheran Confessions Restrict our Theology?
Here is a question that was put up on Facebook. It is one of those questions that reminds me of the old “when did you stop beating your wife” type of questions; that is, the way it is worded it is meant to elicit a “no” from you, but the question is predicated on a faulty premise, that the Lutheran Confessions are somehow a “restriction” on our thinking. Just the opposite is true, the Lutheran Confessions liberate us from our preconceptions and errors in theological reflection. Here then is the qustion, and how I responded. How would you have responded?
Were our Confessions conceived as a theological box with intentionally fixed boundaries unaffected by changing contexts?
We ask our pastors and other church workers carefully to study the Book of Concord so as to determine if they can, with joy and confidence, say, “Yes, this is my belief, teaching and confession.” . . . they are a “fixed boundary” for what we believe, teach and confess to be the teachings of God’s Word.
Here is how the Formula of Concord concludes:
“Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom [the entire Church of Christ], we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God’s grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it, but, by the help of God’s grace, intend to abide thereby.”
So when DID you stop beating your wife, Paul? Yeah, I completely agree that the question is a lose-lose, but honestly – I appreciate the “reigning in” that the Confessions have to offer. Of course you can only appreciate that if you’ve read them and continue to approach them with new questions. And for the record, I’d much rather be reigned in by the Confessions themselves than by people who presume to tell me what they mean – which is all too often out of context and meant to serve one’s own ends.
in Christ,
jW
Yes. The Lutheran Confessions restrict our theology to the confines of the apostolic faith that is taught in holy scripture in the same way that a seat belt restricts your movement in a highspeed rollover.
When society takes a spiritual, social, or theological wrong turn and goes end over end, you can tell which church bodies are “restricted” in this way and which ones are not “restricted” by taking a survey of whose “bodies” end up crumpled and on the highway.
May I never unfasten the safety belt of the Lutheran Confessions, for they restrict me from doing grave harm to myself.
We are a confessional congregation and history shows that without confessions errors will creep in. This is an excellent confession showing what we as Lutherans believe and hold fast too. Although being secondary to the Word of God this book shows our history and theological development, and is very useful.
I would answer with a quick and joyful YES: the truth does have a restrictive effect on thinking. Without any sense of truth a person would be completely mad. Come to think of it, that seems to desribe people I know that deny moral truth or the existence of God.
Peace of soul is the fertile earth in which God tills His bountiful fields of graces.
Prof. William Arndt wrote in the Concordia Theological Monthly:
The Confessions are the brightest jewel in the crown of the Lutheran Church. In speaking of our Confessions we dwell on facts that should make the heart of every Lutheran swell with joy and thanksgiving. We look here on one of the brightest pages of our history as a church. It is true, I admit, that the laurels of our fathers must not become the soft bed of the children on which they repose in sweet indolence, and it may be that there is somebody who speaks about the achievements of his ancestors to such an extent that he entirely forgets about the plowing, harvesting, and threshing which he himself ought to do. But my plea is that we do not become so occupied with our daily tasks in the churches that we forget the magnificent treasures which are furnished us in our Confessions. To study them, to read them frequently, to ponder their content, is like traveling, in a mountain country where the air is pure, the brooks sparkle, the birds sing their most beautiful songs, and the clatter of the noisy streets cannot disturb and intrude.
My questions back would be: is there any such thing as false doctrine? Does the church have a role to play in protecting people from false doctrine? I think many who are under the influence of emerging theology would have a hard time giving affirmative answers to these questions.
And yet we have so much from the mouth of our Savior about false teachers, false prophets, sheep and wolves. In order to do the protective work that He called us to do, we need to be able to speak clearly about which teachings are true, and which are false. Thus the confessions, which I would call a protective fence instead of a restrictive box. The seatbelt metaphor is not bad either!
Do the Lutheran Confessions restrict our Theology? No more so, than the rules of logic restrict our ability to do science.
Yes, the Confessions place boundaries on the theology to be propounded by any theologian who puts himself forward as being a Lutheran. Anyone who, for example, proposes double predestination and limited atonement is, in our free society, free to do so; he ought not, however, to hold himself forward as a Lutheran. Likewise, anyone who teaches meritum congrui and meritum condigni (including their supposedly Protestant counterparts, decision theology and “personal holiness” theology) is not a Lutheran, whatever else he is.
Being a Lutheran is plainly defined. Whoever does not fully affirm the Augsburg Confession and our two Catechisms cannot consider himself in any sense a Lutheran; whoever does not affirm all the Confessions cannot be called Lutheran without significant reservations. Supposedly Lutheran theologians in the last century have rejected the inerrancy of Scripture, notwithstanding the statements in the Large Catechism that God, and Scripture, do not lie. Similarly, there are some who have affirmed an Arminian decision theology in the name of church growth, notwithstanding the clear rejection by the Formula of Concord of any synergism. They may be conservative Methodists; they are not, however, Lutherans.