This Side of the Pulpit » Theology » Some of My Definitions
Some of My Definitions
Here are my definitions of some of the terms included in the post below. They are not always easy to define, so, as always, I invite comments!
Bronze-Age: Refers to the worship, practice and theology of 1. LCMS circa 1950; characterized by emphasis on CFW Walther, Pieper, 1941 hymnal. Understands Lutheran worship and practice primarily as doctrinal; 2. Pastors today who continue the trend of 1. (above). Example: Herman Otten. These pastors tend to emphasize the old ways of “Missouri” and place great emphasis on the denomination qua denomination.
Confessional: Refers to pastors who place great emphasis on knowing the doctrine of the Book of Concord, the collection of doctrinal statements written by the first Lutheran Reformers. They tend to be conservative in worship forms, though more open to the spirit of contemporary worhsip if not the actual practice thereof. Influenced some by the Liturgical movement of the 1960s, they are prone to use the hymnal qua hymnal. They differ from Bronze-agers in placing more emphasis on the Confessions rather than on later doctrinal formulations and in adopting reforms which originated at Vatican II and came into the LCMS via Lutheran Worship.
Evangelical Catholic: a more recent trend in LCMS theology and practice, these pastors make the Augsburg Confession dominant, viewing Lutherans as not a separate denomination, but as a Reform movement of the Roman Catholic Church. These pastors and congregations tend to add ceremony and rubrics to the received Lutheran rites such as incense. They differ from Confessionals in their emphasis on liturgy and worship. Some tend to be more ecumenical.
Of course you have movements sliding the other direction as well:
Gospel Reductionism: a trend or school that arose in the 1960s which states that Jesus and “His Gospel” is sine qua non of Lutheranism. That is, all things “reduce” to the Gospel message of Jesus’ death for sinners. Other points not contradicting this are debatable or otherwise less important. Gospel reductionism leads to mainline liberal protestant theology OR it can lead to Evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism: A larger trend within American Christianity which came from the Fundamentalist movement. Evangelicals emphasize Biblical inerrancy, personal faith and sanctification in the Christian’s life, evangelism of all other people who don’t live and believe like they do, marketing and consumerism. Evangelicals emphasize the experience of Christianity and place little or no emphasis on sacraments. Many Lutherans have bought into this trend and imitate them.
Related posts:
Filed under: Theology · Tags: controversy, LCMS, Theology
25 Responses to "Some of My Definitions"
Leave a Reply
Books!
Networked Blogs
Recent Comments
- Julia Harrington on Brown Shoes and No Connections
"Haha, Hall Hall. :)…" - Mark Lehenbauer on Trying New Stuff on the Blog
"Aah. Took several minutes to get from FB to the blog.…" - Mark Lehenbauer on Trying New Stuff on the Blog
"So, if I comment here on the blog it will show up on FB?…" - Carl Vehse on The Horror! The Horror!
"Dixie, you are right. Scientific study that backs up the claim that alcohol and…" - Dixie on The Horror! The Horror!
"...The potential for spread of infection during this religious ritual does ex…"
So which are you? I find myself not fitting neatly into any of these, but having sympathies with both Bronzers and Hyper-Euros (another term you didn’t mention).
The definition of “bronze age Lutheran” can depend on the category to which the definer belongs or has sympathies with. For example, here is one person’s definition of a bronze age Lutheran:
“The group gathering around A Brief Statement sees the church in nineteenth century terms and is often called the bronze agers, a term whose frequent usage weakens its meaning and now indicates a lack of verbal creativity. Its influence was evident in a resolutions declaring that the ELCA was no longer an orthodox Lutheran church, a self-evident assumption, and another establishing C.F.W. Walther’s understanding of the church as norma normans et normata.” — David P. Scaer, “Missouri’s Identity Crisis: Rootless in America”, The 25th Annual Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions, Concordia Theological Seminary, January 23, 2002
BTW, later in his article, when faced with taking the doctrinal path of either Walther or Loehe, Scaer prefers Sasse. His sympathy for another category of Lutherans, Hyper-Euro-Lutherans (and some sarcasm regarding Walther’s position) is illustrated in a Concord-Texas report on a banquet held Monday night, just before the 2001 CTS Symposium on January 16-19:
“During the lectures and Banquet two different pastors handed me red and black “Voter Assembly Buster” lapel stickers. There was also a second sticker with a cross promoting Hyper-Euro-Lutherans.
“At the Banquet downtown, with some 800 people in attendance, one of the highlights of the evening’s entertainment was Dr. David Scaer asking all of the lay people to stand up, about 200. He then told them that Pastor Jack Cascione says now you can all vote to become a church. There was a great deal of laughter from the audience. Doctor Scaer then asked all of the Hyper-Euro-Lutherans to stand up. Between 300 and 400 people stood up. There was a great deal of applause for the Hyper-Euro Lutherans.”
Another definition of Bronze Age Lutherans is referred to in “Changes in the Wisconsin Synod” by WELS Professor Mark Braun, Wisconsin Lutheran College. (Despite the article’s title, the first 11 pages and approximately 140 out of the 184 references in the 25-page paper are about the doctrinal changes in the Missouri Synod that occurred during the first 70 years or so of the 20th century.):
“John Pless, professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, has identified four constituencies in present-day Missouri. Some ‘unreconstructed moderates’—the old liberals from pre-walkout days—are still present. Second are what Pless called the ‘politically correct Lutherans, equipped with the latest in synodically-approved programs and agreeing with the Synod’s position, whatever that might be at the time.’ Third are the ‘bronze age Lutherans,’ who consider Francis Pieper the epitome of correct Lutheran theology and regard women voting in congregational meetings a sure sign of heresy. Fourth are the ‘confessional Lutherans,’ who ‘have a strong confessional theology coupled with a respectable liturgical life.’ ["Previewing Missouri’s Convention,” Forum Letter 21 (June 29, 1992), 5]. Pless clearly favors the fourth group. [Emphasis added]
Confessional Lutherans:
In his “Ask the Pastor” column, “What Is a Confessional Lutheran?”, the Rev. Walther Snyder answers the question by pointing out that a Confessional Lutheran is a person who holds a quia confession to the Creeds and Symbols contained in the Book of Concord (1580), because he believes these confessions are a correct exposition of Scripture.
Evangelical Catholic:
Relating “catholic” to some association with or sympathies toward the Roman Catholic Church associates the definition of “catholic” with a visible Church, which Romanists hold to be the Roman Catholic Church. However, for Lutherans the three Creeds and the Confessions, as well as confessional Lutherans (e.g., Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, Pieper, Mueller, etc.) clearly identify “catholic” as pertaining to the “invisible” Church of all true believers. Thus in using such terms (e.g., orthodox, evangelical, charismatic, and catholic) correctly requires that one use them with the confessional Lutheran meanings.
Here are a couple more categories, which have been discussed elsewhere in the Missouri Synod community, even if you may not have any in your Praesidium or Board:
A Hyper-Euro-Lutheran is best defined as a Lutheran who rejects the Scriptural doctrine of church and ministry as summarized in the Lutheran Confessions and explained in C.F.W. Walther’s Kirche und Amt, and instead holds to and promotes the beliefs of church and ministry espoused by Wilhelm Loehe, a German Lutheran theologian, who broke with Walther and the Missouri Synod in 1853, conceding in 1859 that the doctrine of the Missouri Synod was the doctrine of the ministry held by Luther and the Lutheran confessions, while on the other hand Loehe claimed his position held an ‘artless attachment to Holy Scripture and antiquity and (by) greater truth in practice.’”
Under this definition, a Hyper-Euro-Lutheran (aka, Loeheist) opposes the voters assembly, believes the laity should obey their pastors in all cases except when he contradicts Scripture, that the rights and privileges of the office of the keys are not given to every Christian, that pastor beget congregations, that only ordination by a clergyman can make a clergyman, that the church is a visible institution, that not all doctrines of Scripture were fixed in the confessions, etc. (a quantenus confession).
The Hyper-Ritualists, another probably overlapping category of Lutherans, is discussed in Rev. Paul McCain’s Cyberbrethren blog, including the article “The Dangers of Hyper-Ritualizing Lutheran Worship Or: Why ‘Say the black, do the red’ is the wisest course”. About these hyper-ritualists, Rev. McCain noted: “I think some are getting too concerned about Medieval-era Roman Catholic rubrics calling, for example, for a pastor to hold his fingers in a certain position, in a certain way, ‘just so’ when performing the liturgy. It is this kind of hyper-ritualization of all things having to do with worship and liturgy that is about the best formula I can imagine for turning people away from the liturgy. The better way is to ‘say the black, do the red’ as contained in the hymnals and its companion volumes, not trying to ‘one up’ the church’s accepted worship resources.”
More about the hyper-ritualists can be read in the following Cyberbrethren articles: “A Fraternal Warning Against the Temptation of Liturgical Pietism”; “Is Referring to the Lutheran Divine Service as a “Mass” a Wise Thing to Do?”; “Historic Lutheran Worship v. Medieval Roman Masses”; “Reservation of Consecrated Communion Elements as If They Remain the Body and Blood of Christ is Not a Lutheran Practice”; “You Are Not Free to Use This Liberty” –Martin Luther”.
Here’s the links to the above Cybrethren articles that didn’t get their URLs attached:
“Is Referring to the Lutheran Divine Service as a ‘Mass’ a Wise Thing to Do?”
“Historic Lutheran Worship v. Medieval Roman Masses”;
Chryst and “Vehse” raise a good point. What about the other terms?
Hypo-European is a slur, created by Rev. Jack Cascione, I think. It actually refers to Evangelical Catholics and some Confessionals who believe that the congregational polity of the LCMS is not quite what the Confessions had in mind. Now some have taken this slur and made it a badge of honor, much like Evangelical Catholics taking the name Lutheran in the 16th Century. As for Vehse’s definition, let it be remembered Walther actually suggested the Pastor would be a great congregational president. Hmm…
Hyper-Ritualist is another slur created by McCain, to refer again to Evangelical Catholics who add rubrics to his house’s Hymnal.
As far as the Board goes, I would say we have some Ev. Caths, some Confessionals, Bronzers, Blenders, and probably a few Evangelical-style-worshipers. I won’t name names or point fingers and admit that these labels are based on my own observation. Some in the district may be surprised at these labels, but if they are, then it shows again how we can find harmony with one another.
To be more specific with your definition’s characterization of “Bronze-Age [Lutheran], I would say that a Bronze-Age [Lutheran] is a confessional Lutheran (I presume you are not suggesting that Walther and Pieper were not!) with the additional view that the explanation provided in Walther’s Kirche und Amt is the definitive statement under Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions of the Synod’s understanding of the doctrine of church and ministry. It is also valid to include Pieper’s restatement of the Missouri Synod’s doctrinal position in what became “A Brief Statement of 1932.”
As discussed by Carl S. Meyer, in his “The Historical Background of ‘A Brief Statement’” (Concordia Theological Monthly 32 1961: 403-428, 466-482, 526-542), the Brief Statement was in response to doctrinal concerns raised during the “middle period” of the Missouri Synod (1887-1932), during which German immigration ended, Missouri Synod Lutherans were assimilated into the American culture and use of English, and influences of American Protestant denominations and sects began to influence LCMS beliefs and practices.
The use of the 1941 Hymnal (an approved LCMS publication) is probably not as descriptive today as it was 20 years ago.
Rev. Hall, your “Confessional” category seems to be overly general (again, are you suggesting that none of the other categories are truly “confessional”?), since on paper even the Gospel reductionist and “Evangelical Catholic” Lutherans claim to hold to the Lutheran Confessions (if only in name only or selected portions). Furthermore the definition is contradictory since you claim “They [Confessionals] differ from Bronze-agers in placing more emphasis on the Confessions rather than on later doctrinal formulations”. But then you state “[They differ from Bronze-agers] in adopting reforms which originated at Vatican II and came into the LCMS via Lutheran Worship.” So really what you’ve stated is that the group you call “Confessionals” have “adopted” different doctrinal positions than Bronze Age Confessional Lutherans have “emphasized.” The fact that you note such added positions come from revised Romanist positions makes this group little more than the group you define as “Evangelical Catholic”.
Another indication of a problem with your definition of “Confessional” is your definitional statement, “They tend to be conservative in worship forms, though more open to the spirit of contemporary worship if not the actual practice thereof.” “Spirit of contemporary worship”?!? C’mon!!
In defining categories of positions within the Missouri Synod today, one is going to have to address what (IMO) are the roots of the major differences that exist within the Missouri Synod today:
1. The doctrine of church and ministry (Walther’s or Loehe’s or Peter Wagner’s or Billy Graham’s)
2. Lutheran worship (“Lex credendi; lex orandi” vs. “Lex orandi; Lex credendi” vs. “CGM seeker sensitive”)
3. The synodical polity (congregational vs. episcopist vs. corporate)
”Hypo-European is a slur, created by Rev. Jack Cascione”
Well “Hypo-European” might be a slur, but Cascione created the term, “Hyper-Euro-Lutheran.” This term is a direct reference to the doctrinal positions of European Lutheran Wilhelm Loehe that differed from the church and ministry position of CFW Walther and the Missouri Synod, which led to Loehe severing ties with them in 1853. That such Loeheist views are held by some within the Synod even today is also noted in the findings of his official 1996 visitation of Concordia Theological Seminary by then LCMS President A.L. Barry. So, if the shoe fits, it really can’t be called a “slur”.
”As for Vehse’s definition, let it be remembered Walther actually suggested the Pastor would be a great congregational president. Hmm…”
And let it be remembered Walther, along with the other Missouri Saxon pastors prior to the Altenburg Debate, suggested [actually demanded] retaining the episcopist polity within congregations. But as Carl S. Mundinger (Government in the Missouri Synod, CPH, 1947, p. 125) noted:
“Just how did the principles which [Dr. Carl Eduard] Vehse and Walther derived from the writings of Luther work out in the day-to-day life of a Lutheran congregation? Was the Vehse-Walther-Luther principle, that laymen have the power by majority vote to regulate financial and spiritual matters, practicable? Did the theory of the ‘supremacy’ of the congregation work? Nowhere is the working of this principle better revealed than in the minutes of Trinity Lutheran Church, St. Louis, one of the mother churches of the Missouri Synod… [I]t can be said that by and large the principle of congregational supremacy was applied in the early years of ‘Old Trinity’ and that it worked.”
Here’s the correct link to A.L. Barry’s 1996 CTS Visitation summary report.
Ok, “Carl” I said it was just a throw-out definition.
You’re right about the Bronzies. Let your clarifications stand.
But the Confessionals: no, I do not believe for a second that all of the other groups adhere to the confessions. Not for a second. It is too easy for all of us to overlook that which we find uncomfortable or inexpedient or “historical.”
Second, while you are correct that “Confessional” does not exclusively adhere to the confessions, I define that group that way because they explicitly identify themselves as such. You seem to be defining “Confessional” as a general class. I don’t. I see a distinct element that prides themselves on knowledge of the confessions within the other groups.
And about the contemporary thing: this distinct group which I am trying to define (in a throw-it-out-there fashion) must admit that hymnody changes and that musical accompanyment is a dritte dinge. On basis of the confessions, a LW DS I service led by guitars is “kosher.” A bronzie might not say it, nor an EV Cath. As much as you might hate to admit it, I think the Confessions it pinned on this. We can make all kinds of sociological, practical, aesthetic reasons why guitar-music, or drum and bass music (or honky tonk, or whatever) should not be in church, but when all is said and done, nothing in Scripture nor the Confessions addresses it. If you want to make that argument for organ-only, or for orchestral music only based on Scripture or dogma, you’re going to have find it outside of the Confessions. Plain and simple, however tasteful or distasteful it may be.
Now, on another note: you’re taking this much more academically than I am. I appreciate that, but I was primarily defining these terms for lay readers who don’t care about the academic approach or just wanted a quick and dirty definition. Much more work is needed, as you clearly show, in order to make sense of the why and when and how and what for the future unity of the synod.
while you are correct that “Confessional” does not exclusively adhere to the confessions, I define that group that way because they explicitly identify themselves as such.
Bronze Age Lutherans also “explicitly identify themselves” as “Confessional.”
I was primarily defining these terms for lay readers who don’t care about the academic approach or just wanted a quick and dirty definition.
In my comments I’ve tried to provide references for readers who may not be “up-to-speed” on terminology related to Lutheran doctrine and Missouri Synod history. The problem with a “quick and dirty” approach is that it doesn’t help such learning Lutherans to identify some of the positions within the LCMess today. A person is then left with choosing a “good-sounding” category for a position he agrees with and a “bad-sounding” category for a position he doesn’t agree with. And if the LCMS is going to survive as a Lutheran Synod, its congregations are going to have to become educated Lutherans familiar with its Confession, its history, and the internal and external struggles it had in the past to retain the Lutheran confessional doctrine.
And Bronze Age Lutherans don’t claim doctrine (or dogma) specifically prohibits certain types of organs (tracker or electronic), pianos, or other musical instruments.
Another category of pastors (and laity) on the leftwing side of the Missouri Synod could be called “JF/DS”, although it is “DayStar” rather than the ‘UsFirst” group that has been more strident in their advocacy of such things as women’s ordination and ecumenical ties to the E?CA. They seem to enjoy rubbing elbows at various unionistic and syncretic events, and while supporting Kieschnick’s “once in a lifetime” YS blessing, look forward to more like a “one-at-a-time” frequency.
Many in this group have an interest in high church liturgical rituals, with which they dialog with some of high church aficionados from the confessional side, to seek influence, not so much to get the confessional to join their viewpoint, but to get the confessional to tolerate the theology heard from and practices performed by the JF/DS pastors.
I suspect there is little more than a “Mutt and Jeff” interrogation difference between the two liberal groups. Both ‘UsFirst and Daystar have been around for a while.
Good points, all around. Again, I do appreciate the time you spent in providing sources/resources for follow-up. Indeed, I hope any readers I have (all five of them) who are interested will check out the links and documents you referenced.
And thanks for your referencing JF/DS too, though in my experience I see little of the JF interest in high church things.
Some other references:
Rev. Paul Sauer’s Lutheran Forum article, via ALPB describes 4 groups within the LCMS –
Pro-encumbancy High-Church, Anti-encumbancy High-Church, Pro-encumbancy Low-Church and Anti-encumbancy Low-Church. http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0
Seemed to me like the AE-LC were the Bronzers, the AE-HC were the Hyper-Euros, the PE-HC are the Evangelical Catholics and the PE-LC are the Church Growth crowd. But again these categories are simply thumb-rules.
Dr. David Adams describes three – Traditional, Neo-Evangelical and Moderate – http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Adamsdiagnosis.pdf
Thanks, Tom! Those are good too, though I wouldn’t really call the PE-HC the Evangelical Catholics. ISTM that the Evangelical Catholics don’t pay much attention to the hierarchy as they are on different planets. And that is not a slur
I think of the PE-HC types as the Evangelical Catholics, mostly because of what I observe from the conversations on ALPB. Maybe I’m mistaken. But I think that in this sector, there is a more ecumenical (if you ask them) or unionistic (if you ask others) bent than in the AE-HC circles. Adams would call these guys moderates, I suppose, but Carl raises a good question – moderate in comparison to whom?
By the way, I’m not so interested in endorsing or criticizing any of these assessments. I am mostly curious how they help us understand where the lines do fall in the LCMS. Admittedly, where they fall depends on our perspective. Also admittedly, the lines can be fuzzy. But I do think they are there.
Chris, you still never answered my question of how you define yourself, did you?
You’re no doubt right about that. When I mentioned EvCaths being more ecumenical, I was thinking of that a little, but mostly in terms of going outside our tradition for all kinds of things. Perhaps why a certain editor doesn’t like them too much
.
Where do I fall? Good question. Maybe I’m too high-school still, but I hate being labeled…and despite the definitions, really don’t like labeling others either. As you said, the lines are fuzzy.
I’d probably be an Evangelical Catholic, though our worship is more straight LSB, with an attempt at using all the rubrics as intended. Or you could say I’m a lousy Confessional. Or maybe a failed Blender. Or a Hyper-Euro who didn’t drink the Ft. Wayne Koolaid. Probably a Gospel Reductionist when it comes to my life…. See, I just can’t leave it alone, can I
I feel your pain. I like to describe myself as a former moderate, continually becoming more Lutheran.
Regarding the “Field Guide to the Missouri Synod”, I’d be hesitant to trust anything written by a person who sent a letter like this to Rev. Cascione and Rev. Henrickson.
Furthermore, the ALPB categorization focuses largely on the incumbent rather than the doctrinal positions and practice of the incumbent or his minions. Eventually the incumbent will change and then the definitions will make little sense, even though the categories of people will still be around.
Regarding Dr. Adams’ categories, they appear more detailed, with two of the three defined groups as basically the “ELCA wannabees” and the Kieschnick loyalists. The remaining confessional group he calls “Traditional Missouri,” but then defines them as pretty much Waltherian Lutherans. That is certainly not the case as the response to David Scaer’s remarks at the 2001 CTS symposium banquet indicates.
How can a group that practices or encourages Gospel reductionism, open communion, unionism and syncretism, women’s ordination, an ambiguous position on Biblical inerrancy be classified as “Moderate Missouri”? Has Dr. Adams been breathing too close to the thurible?
How about just calling this category “heterodox”?
Paul Sauer is a friend of mine from the Seminary. And to put the best construction on it, let’s remember that he clearly signed it as Secretary of the District. He was writing a letter he apparently had been instructed to write.
But I agree that his definitions are transitory…though still more fleshed out and serious than my dashed-off ones.
There is clearly a lot to understand about this. I believe you produced some very good points in Attributes also.
Keep operating , good position!