What about the watered-down (non-denominational churches) or diet versions (“progressive” Christianity?) In those cases, nothing is added, but a lot is removed. Does the article from 1982 still hold true for these types of churches.

@James

You can take their statements of faith and put them in a denominational ballpark based on what they say or don’t say. It’s almost a process of elemination based on the doctrines they assert and the ones they deny. You can’t remain neutral on alot of these things. It is either one or the other. It usually goes like this:

You don’t follow the pope so you aren’t Roman Catholic. You don’t pray to/for the dead or meditate in front of icons so you are not Eastern Orthodox. You deny the Real Presence so you are not Lutheran. You deny total depravity so you aren’t a Calvinist. You hold to a trinitarian understanding of the Godhead so you aren’t a Oneness Pentecostal, Morman, Modalist, etc. You hold to believer’s baptism so that makes you some kind of arminian anabaptist… etc etc.

Nondenominational churches end up being something or the other. They just don’t own up to it publically because they don’t want to cause offense and they want to promote a big tent philosophy. You can downplay the importance of doctrine but you can’t make it go away. Doctrine is nothing more than a teaching so the very idea that doctrine is not important is in itself a doctrine! The only way to be truely nondenomination is to assert absolutely nothing… and then you don’t have a church anymore. But even then you don’t escape labels because at that point you are Emergent.

This is an extremely important quotation. Too often I hear comments like “I’m not Lutheran. I’m Christian” (This seems to imply that to be Lutheran is not Christian.) or “I’m Christian first and Lutheran second.” (This seems to imply that being Lutheran is something in addition to being Christian.)

Why do people say such things? I think people are almost embarrassed to say that their confession is true. They don’t want to appear arrogant nor do they want to have to admit that other confessions are false. They gain false comfort by saying that they are “Christian” because it frees them from both of those fears.

How about the “Little Pink Church Syndrome” where a pastor from a larger denomination chooses to desert the denomination and start a church where he can be boss and preach his own thing. No ecclesiastical oversight at all.

@Mike Baker
And as in the novel Wise Blood by Flannery O’Connor (a devout Roman Catholic), the main character Hazel Moates proclaims the “Church without Christ”: “It’s based on your own personal interpitation (sic) of the Bible, friends. You can sit at home and interpit your own Bible however you feel in your heart it ought to be interpited.” Yup. It’s still a dogmatic statement.

Jesus is Lord.

Randy

Too often I hear comments like “I’m not Lutheran. I’m Christian” (This seems to imply that to be Lutheran is not Christian.) or “I’m Christian first and Lutheran second.” (This seems to imply that being Lutheran is something in addition to being Christian.)

Well…to be fair there is some truth to the statement “I’m not Lutheran. I’m Christian” . While my wife and I were in the ELCA it was quite embarrassing at times when the leadership said or did something foolish that was clearly out of step with the teachings of the Gospel.

I think there are many Christians who are still in mainline Protestant denominations and are weary of the whole mess these denominations have created for themselves. With apologies to C.S. Lewis, these denominations seem to be preaching Christianity and Something, as if the Gospel needs additives or seasoning. It is Christianity and Social Justice, or Christianity and Campaign Finance Reform, or Christianity and Opposition to the Iraq War, or Christianity and Voter Registration, or Christianity and Multiculturalism, or Christianity and … well, you get the picture. In any variation of Christianity and Something the Something becomes the most important and the Christianity takes a back seat.

For that reason I can sympathize with the statement “I’m not Lutheran. I’m Christian”. I used to use it myself – a lot. It’s an unfair slap at Lutherans who are faithful to the Gospel, but then it was unfair for the ELCA’s leadership to run the denomination for their own selfish purposes and in the process drag the name “Lutheran” through the mud.

Our culture has become so self-absorbed that we think that WE get to pick our labels. That’s not how this works. Labels are used by other people to define groups and individuals. If I weigh 90 lbs soaking wet, watch Star Trek every day after school, have mint condition action figures, big ugly glasses, no fashion sense, and play roleplaying games online, I don’t get to pretend like the label “geek” does not apply to me. It was invented to describe people who do these kinds of things.

Labels are means of classification not means of self identity. When people create their own labels they are almost always nothing more than means of propoganda. That’s what nondenominational is. It’s a propoganda tool and nothing more. Trying to avoid a denominational label is like trying to dodge reasonable classification. I find it to be inherently dishonest. Like a badger trying to say he’s not a mammal.

If the shoe fits….

Aren’t all Lutherans the same? Catholics are the same, so aren’t Lutherans? Most people are unaware that other flavors of Lutheranism exist – as if there are no doctrinal differences among the various Lutheran bodies. The ELCA and LCMC have embraced Historical Criticism of the bible – “Situational Lutheranism” for the postmodern age.

To be embarrassed to be a Lutheran….? Funny how members of other denominations don’t hide in shame. If you are ELCA or LCMC, then please find a confessional Lutheran denomination. Confessional Lutheran types are insulted that the name “Lutheran” has been ruined in the public eye.

Among religious denominations, I think it is important both to fully appreciate what we have in common and to respect where we differ.

I’ve always said there’s nothing “mere” about Christianity. Ultimately, the individual has their own stance on theological and social issues. You’re either a predestinarian or you’re not. You either think infants should be baptized or you don’t. The answers to these questions are extremely important (I’m mindful of how important the Sacraments and adhering to salvation by grace alone through faith alone to our faith and life in Christ). Everybody inevitably takes a stand, I say.

@Recovering Lutheran
I understand the point you made about my post and I’m certainly sympathetic to your plight.

However, your post is a good example of how important it is to define terms. I was using the term “Lutheran” to mean someone who confesses the historic Christian faith in accord with the Book of Concord. You seemed to be using the term “Lutheran” to mean anyone or any body that designates himself/itself to be Lutheran. There is a huge difference here which, I suspect, your experience has shown you.

The fact that some people and institutions call themselves Lutheran while not confessing the Lutheran Biblical faith does not negate or invalidate the proper use of the name “Lutheran” by those who DO confess the Lutheran Biblical faith.

My point in using the phrase, “I’m not Lutheran. I’m Christian”, was not that some people want to be known to be Christians instead of Lutherans because Lutherans are no longer confessing the faith (as, apparently, has been your experience). It is that some people want to be known as only Christians (in a generic sense) instead of Lutherans because of some Lutherans who so faithfully confess the faith. It is a fear of too much doctrinal orthodoxy, not a fear of too little.

If I would ever have to undergo an experience like yours, I would say, “I’m not what that denomination/congregation confesses. I’m a Christian who confesses the orthodox Christian faith.” If someone were to ask, “But I thought you were Lutheran?”, I would smile and say, “Let’s talk about what it means to be Lutheran.”

You seemed to be using the term “Lutheran” to mean anyone or any body that designates himself/itself to be Lutheran. There is a huge difference here which, I suspect, your experience has shown you.

You are correct, but the world (and especially the non-Christian world) is probably not going to make that distinction. For that reason, I’ll bet that the use of the phrase “I’m not Lutheran. I’m Christian.” will probably be used more and more.

In setting fire to its own house, the ELCA has managed to damage all others, even if only indirectly.

@ Recovering Lutheran

Why not jump into the LCMS or TAALC. They would love to have you.