Here are my two cents...
The "grand heuristic" (thought-provoking event) for me occurred back when I was doing youth work in Seattle. There was a young woman involved in our youth group who attended a congregation called the "Church of Christ" or the "Christian Church."
The leaders of her congregation used this name because they considered their beliefs to be pure, unadulterated Christianity. She claimed that "we don't follow the words of Martin Luther or any human being -- we only follow the Word of God that He gave us in Scripture" (or something similar).
When I asked her HOW they followed the Word of God, she recited a laundry list of how they correctly interpreted Scripture. ("We use clear passages to intrepret difficult passages...," etc.) Try as I might, I never did find her list anywhere between Genesis and Revelations. Apparently, this group
DID follow the words of a human being.
In other words, they desperately wanted to be "right" and "orthdox" -- so they convinced themselves that they could view Scripture objectively and completely accurately. How silly.
I tend to think that those of us in the "named" denominations (Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians) are much more honest. We're willing to declare the pre-conceived notions we bring to the table when we sit down to read Scripture. (As a good social scientist, I think that's essential.) Ergo, we announce our biases -- as Lutherans we declare that we will approach Scripture in the manner laid out by the Confessions.
Does that mean that the Confessions are authoritative? Sort of... but not in the same way that Scripture is authoritative.
The Confessions are OUR annoucement of our priorities, findings and biases when it comes to reading Scripture. The Confessions are the words of fallible, errant people who come view Scripture through a particular set of "glasses." (Not to be confused with Joseph Smith's wacky gold glasses.
)
So, if we want to be people of integrity... we should generally stick to the document that we hold up as our gameplan for reading Scripture.
But can we change our gameplan? Is it possible to discover that the words of the Confessions were influenced or limited by the time in which they were written? Is it possible to revisit the ideas and priorities presented in the Confessions in light of the Church as it exists in the 21st century?
I tend to think the answer to all of these questions is yes; but I also understand that a radical departure from what we have done in the past is unwise.
For example, I tend to think that some of the items laid out under the heading of "Good Order" could be considered a product of their times. When looking at this portion of the Augsburg Confession, I think it's fair to consider the following:
1. they reflect the only congregational structure that Luther had experienced (i.e., the Roman Catholic version)
2. these rules may have been influenced by the peasant uprising and other radical, thoughtless activities at that time
3. they fail to consider some of the alternate congregational structures presented in Scripture, such as the one used by the Presbyterians -- which appeared much later
4. they address a time when the lay people were generally uneducated, illiterate and highly superstituous; typically, the priest was the only one in the congregation who was educated
5. they may have been influenced by the desire of early Lutherans to avoid too much chaos, given the radical theological changes they had already presented.
In short, are these rules as applicable in 2005 as they were in the 16th century?
I'd appreciate hearing other thoughts.
-Cloy
