If you want to be the Church, deny the Augsburg Confession!

From Cyberbrethren:

“The Commission for Theology advises the Council of the EKD not to accept the Augsburg Confession as a primary confession in the EKD fundamentals.” The Commission is co-chaired by Michael Beintner (Münster) and Professor Dorothea Wendebourg. The vote was unanimous and agreed to by the EKD Council, which affirmed its readiness to continue strengthening the bonds of the EKD. Instead of accepting the Augsburg Confession, a document that both Lutherans and Protestants in Germany agree “has been the core confession of all of German Protestantism from 1530 to 1806″ (Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Münster), the Council referred dissenters to its 2001 adoption of “Church Fellowship in Evangelical Understanding” (KneV). There it states that the EKD does not seek to form “a canonical church, like her member churches,” since the EKD already is [the] church in the fullest sense of the word. Perhaps mindful that KneV was German Protestantism’s response to the Vatican’s August 2000 document “Dominus Iesus,” which affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church over all other “ecclesial communities,” EKD President Hermann Barth stated, “Measures by which the EKD must first become the church are not necessary, since she is already it in the theological sense, since church fellowship is church.” The EKD reaffirmed it’s continuing commitment to the Leuenberger Konkordie.

So, if someone is already the Church, what do they need with the Augustana? Put another way, it seems that the EKD (Evangelische Kirche Deutchland?) has no need for the primary Evangelical confession, which makes one wonder why they consider themselves "Evangelical".

I am really beginning to think that Liberal Protestantism is becoming so unhinged from any semblance of history or tradition they they are becoming--funny! I don't really mean that in a glib way, it is as if we were playing the game "how far can they go?"

Apparently, quite far. Think about it, the ultimate end of being Evangelical is to deny the doctrines of the Evangelical Church are binding, the ultimate end of being Christian is to deny Christ (UCC, others on the way), the ultimate end of studying the Scriptures is to deny the Scriptures (modern critical theory). All the while, they are "church", because they say they are, and all that matters is a few specific words and some scholarly mambo-jumbo.

It is actually pretty funny if you think about it, though in a tragic way.

Polanski

I think if he was called "Pastor Polanski" or "Father Polanski" there would be no celebrities asking for clemency, and there would be a lot of talk about "protecting the children" from sexual predators. It seems that for many of our betters, it doesn't matter what you do so much as who you are. A Christian? Throw the book at him! A gifted "artiste"? Hey, the girl was a bit mature anyway....and it was only sex.

I fail to see why being punished for raping a 13 Y.O. girl--something he plead guilty to to--is of so little import that we can just forget about it. Unless you happen to be of the wrong tribe, of course!

Apologitis

Apologitis is a fairly common ailment on religious blogs which discuss interfaith issues. If you have any two of the following symptoms in a thread, you probably have apologitis:

1) You feel compelled to respond to every critique of your religion such that you spend hours discussing minutia, because everything must be defended. Typical examples are arguing about how your opponent is arguing, and quick, ill thought out responses which, after you read them, even you can see are full of question begging and poor reasoning but never retracted or clarified. But SOMETHING had to be said!

2) You will not retract an obviously false argument because it will hurt your "team". Examples are, when the facts are against you, simply state your opponent does not understand what you are saying about your incredibly deep and nuanced tradition, despite the fact it is a valid critique and the critique does show some tension in your beliefs. This is often used as evidence of the density of your opponent, and that he needs homework assignments. These homework assignments are best when they are thick tomes full of obscure language. This re-enforces the point that your opponent does not understand you and your incredibly deep tradition, as only the knowledgeable can really "get" the source you have assigned, which will clear everything up as soon as they are read.

Another tactic is to feign fatigue because your bovine opponent cannot deal with your rapier-like wit and argumentation. At all times, it is critical to insure the light of reason is shown to be 100% on your side, while anything your opponent says is so obviously wrong only a simpleton could possibly believe it and deny the luminescence of the Truth(tm).

3) You act passive-aggressive toward your opponent in an attempt to look superior. Examples are trying to get the last word explicitly by constantly posting to exhaust your opponent, or implicitly by posting an aggressive argument and offering to let the opponent get the last word out of the bigness of your hart; combined with the statement about the obvious dullness of your opponent.

4) You claim that what ever criteria your tradition has for determining truth is applicable for any other tradition. When cornered, you simply appeal to the obvious truth of the epistemological structure your tradition uses. Examples are Roman Catholics citing Roman Catholic traditions as if they are self evident or wild claims that "the Church" has stated something which "the" Church has not, or Protestants simply citing their confessional documents and/or the peculiar interpretations of Scripture of said tradition as proof.

The cure is Christian humility.

1) If your tradition depends on a single pet argument you have, you need to find a new tradition because it is a weak and easily refuted tradition.

2) As a corollary, if your tradition depends on you to defend it, find another tradition for the same reason.

3) A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. If someone does not accept the same authority you do, that authority is pretty useless for convincing anyone, no matter how many times you post it and pretend the truth is obvious. Also, any tradition which is not brand new will have something going for it, so don't pretend otherwise either actually or rhetorically.

4) Rhetorical games make your argument look weak. If you don't have the time to post, it is almost always better to just say so and not try and gain the upper hand with a faux magnanimity. Alternatively, if someone is a jerk, just stop posting and don't feed the troll--see 1 and 2 above.

Pseudointellectual Dreck

I am watching History International and I learned the following:

1) The Nag Hammadi writings portray Mary Magdalene as a sort of proto-feminist heroine because she spoke up against St. Peter, who said Jesus would never teach such knowledge to a woman.

2) A modern scholar can read the minds of e.g. St. Athanasius and state with a straight face that he wanted to suppress gnosticism because he felt threatened by the gospel of finding God from self reflection. As everyone knows, salvation extra nos cannot possibly be true, because we are the center of everything and have divinity within us.

3) The Madonna and child imagery is just taken from Egyptian mythology--apparently no one ever thought to portray a mother and child without referencing Egyptian mythology.

4) Christians apparently didn't have a single new idea--everything was pinched from the pagans in the neighborhood.

5) Muslim conquerors were humane compared to others, especially the notoriously viscous Byzantines.

Itching ears, indeed.

Come to think of it, I suppose liberal Christianity does indeed have ancient roots.

Why does the pastor say "I" during absolution?

Here is what I think is happening during Absolution. The pastor says "I" because he is in Christ's seat when he gives absolution, because when he does so he acts in accordance with Christ's command and his word of promise.

As to why we need absolution during out life here on earth, we have to do it again not because we necessarily flop back and forth between salvation and damnation, but because we sin--we are sinners as touching our sinful acts and desires and justified as touching our relationship with the Father through Christ. Because we are both at the same time, we still struggle with the sin we were born with and into. The more we grind Adam into dust, the more Godly our acts.

Finally, keep in mind that the objectivity of what is going on is important to Lutherans--it is important we believe the minister when he says our sins are forgiven, because without belief we cannot benefit from the promise of absolution God is iffering through Jesus Christ via the minister.

At what point would a pro abortion stance automatically excommunicate us?

This is something which ranckles me a little bit. You see, the LC-MS and the RCC, as well as the EOC have strong positions against abortion--it is simply a sin, though I think the EOC and LC-MS will permit an abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk--I am not sure abou tthe RCC.

Now, I am not aware of any prominent LC-MS politicians which hold to a pro abortion point of view, though if they exist the same critique would apply to them. And if there are some, I would hope they are not as radical as Nancy Pelosi, Rudolph Giuliani and the recently deceased Edward Kennedy. For that reason I will concentrate on those three prominent RC politicians.

Each one is committed to a "pro choice" view, which is defined as intrinsically evil by the RCC. (And I am not really picking on the RCC here, it is just that I am more familiar with their "pro choice" public figures). I am not sure about Giuliani, but both Pelosi and Kennedy are and were in favor of public funding of abortion, which means I have to pay for acts which I believe are intrinsically evil. So, given that, how does Nancy Pelosi get a papal audience, receive communion and otherwise get to go around and parade her RCism in public and yet maintain a firm commitment to an intrinsically evil act? Edward Kennedy did more or less the same, and received a full RC burial, and was for all appearances a member of the RCC in good standing. Giuliani was, to my knowledge, specifically instructed not to receive communion by the cardinal. But if that is not true, the same critique applies to him.

So, what gives? how can one publicly maintain support for an intrinsically evil act and remain in communion with the Church? I always though public, flagrant sin was a cause for excommunication. Perhaps I am missing something.

ELCA off the cliff

When I heard the news, I wasn't surprised, and only a little disappointed. I mean, it is not like orthodoxy was flourishing before now. The trends have been clear for a long while. And anyone who cannot see that the Scriptures do not permit a homosexual lifestyle is doing theological sophistry. If you want to allow things the Scriptures forbid, don't say your doctrine is based on the Scriptures and admit you disagree.

What will be the effect? The ELCA has by this action proclaimed openly what many have said about her before, she is just another post-modern, culture affirming liberal Church. Less liberal than some, to be sure, but that will change over time. By being in fellowship with so many, how can she speak for American Lutheranism? What do they bring to the table which the UCC does not?

Of course, I hope and pray that the people and clergy in the ELCA "fix" this, but I don't think the problem is gay ministers, but that there is functionally no doctrinal authority except the hierarchy itself. In other words, there is a lot to fix.

*******UPDATE*******

This is really interesting if it pans out. It appears that a freak tornado went through Minneapolis during the events described above, and shredded some tents and knocked the cross off a church used by the convention when the vote was to be taken.

http://tinyurl.com/lpazub

Symbolism abounds. :-)

The President says I am a sinner....

"President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans."


Link

I don't think my religion should determine my politics per se, but I find it offensive that the President of the United States would basically call me unethical because I don't think the government is an efficient, or I daresay, ethical distributor of health care resources for the nation. We are supposed to care for our neighbor, but the government taking resources from one and giving it to another does not make the one whose resources are taken more "ethical", nor does it make the one doing the taking more ethical. Government is force, and necessary, but it is not necessarily a force for ethoical good.

In fact, I think this kind of government moralizing and doctrinizing is what got the LCMS started. "All you fuddy-duddy Lutherans better get with the program and unite with your Reformed neighbors and stop hanging on to your narrow doctrines...."

Update:

It gets worse:

""We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die.""

I don't find this comforting at all, not one little bit.

This made me think of pomo worship

When I saw this video, I immediately thought of "contemporary worship". I know that isn't totally fair, but that is what came to mind with all the "relevance" and "packaging" and being "easy to follow".

HT http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/what-orthodoxy-is-not/

When the facts are on your side....

I see a pattern in how any critique of RCism is dealt with by RC apologists. Let's suppose I wave 1 Clement 32 under an apologist's nose:

"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Well now, that seems pretty straight forward--we are saved by faith and not works--even our godliness and works done in purity of heart. So, Clement seems to have taught something like justification by faith alone, which is a torpedo amidships for accusations of Luther's "innovation".

Well, no, if you ask an RC apologist.

You see, Clement is RC, so he must agree with the current position of the RCC.

I think this is besides the point.

If I argued that Trent said justification by faith alone is the true doctrine of justification, RC apologists would not bother with "The writers of Trent are RC, so an RC interpretation is the correct one", they would argue from the words of Trent themselves. And they would be right, and it would be trivial to show I am wrong since justification by faith alone is explicitly condemned.

What I am getting to is this, there is an old lawyer saw that goes something like this:

"When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition."

I submit that when an apologist, be he RC, EO, Lutheran or whatever, argues from generalities to make what is written mean something quite different from what seems to be the natural sense of what is written, he tacitly admits he does not have the facts on his side. I think something like this is going on with this Clement quote--the RCs have tacitly admitted the facts are on not their side, so they change the subject to "If Clement is RC he agrees with us..." This is a common tactic in my experience.

I also think pope St. Clement did teach something very like justification by faith alone.