confessional vs. non-confessional lutheranism

[FireDragon76]

What are the practical difference between confessional and non-confessional lutheranism, and what place does the Pietist movement play in mainstream Lutheran self-understanding? I am not an expert on Lutheranism, though I have read Luther's Smaller Catechism, but I would like to learn more- most of my experience has been with Anglicanism (of different parties, mostly charismatic and high church) and Eastern Orthodoxy. My impression of both Christian traditions is that they are both relatively broad, "non-confessional", and have some theological diversity (in the case of Anglicanism, quite a bit), so I am wondering how a tradition that is named after one single historical figure squares up in comparison to traditions that have no specific founder.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

the practical difference would ultimately be to what degree adherence to the Lutheran theological tradition (as understood in the documents of the book of Concord) matters in how one "does church" so to speak. How one understands for example the confessional position of the papacy as anti-Christ will inevitably affect Lutheran-Catholic relations. The emphasis on proper administration of the sacrament (and some of the ways that has been laid out in the BoC) is a major area where confessional adherence matters.

Carl Braaten I think rightly notes in his book "Principles of Lutheran Theology" (I think that's the title, it's at the office) that the other issue that also comes into play is that there are differing understandings of what it means to be "confessional" within Lutheranism. This you can practically see in differing synods and how they define who is "confessional" and who is not, in how they appeal to the confessions, and in how often they do and the language by which they do.

This can also be seen in how the language of loyalty to confessions in specific ways play out. Between Melanchthon's variata version of the Augsburg Confession and Schmucker's altered American version of the AC have caused most bodies to define the "unaltered Augsburg Confession" specifically when one vows at ordination allegiance to the confessions.

The imaginary battle is the quia vs. quatenus battle of how one adheres. I call it imaginary because the ELCA is accused by other bodies of only making their pastors at ordination swear quatenus - in as much [as they conform to scripture] - this I'm guessing was an issue in a predecessor body, but it is false that this is the language of the ELCA, I'm not sure when or by whom it was started, but I've regularly heard it.

Confessionalism in terms of theology will definitely narrow the theological realm, or more specifically it will narrow the field by which the theology is discussed judged. In some non-confessional traditions, there is a wider body of authority to adhere to, in a confessionalist tradition, in as much as (there I said it!) the confessions are adhered to and seen as an authoritative means of judging theological paradigms and claims more systematically, it will narrow the sources by which one ultimately debates. Or it will judge the sources by which one debates or the means by which one uses the source.

For example, the BoC (especially FoC) will play a large role in discussions on proper interpretation of Luther on various topics.

The other thing about confessionalism is the way it affects the documents themselves. This is most notable with the AC which was originally used more ecumenically, that is, to appeal to an outside tradition, but it is now used not as an external document but an internal one, instead used not to confess to other bodies but to teach and really shape our own. History and context then can be easily lost in confessionalism because the role of the document has gone well beyond that of its original intent.

Pax

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks. Thank helps me to understand those issues alot. Right now I'm a "church seeker" with an orientation towards broad church and charismatic Anglicanism. I spent some time as an Orthodox Catechumen but ultimately felt that the message I was getting was unclear, a crypto-legalism. But I believe my experience may be rarer since, so I am still exploring that (I realize Orthodoxy requires alot of spiritual direction and does not find a western individualist mindset- it is quite dangerous in an individualists hands, in fact, one reason I just sometimes feel the Lutheran Gospel is alot clearer- I'd rather risk antinomianism frankly).

It sounds like confessionalism is in itself not without problems and doesn't necessarily create unity. I could see a confession at best being a general "trajectory" for a church for the purposes of good order or catechism, but I see real dangers in wooden orthodoxy that is not generous and does not recognize the limitations of the systematization of human thought and of human language.

A good example of this- I generally agree that the Bible teaches "justification by faith alone", that that is a legitimate way of talking about it. But if I were to be asked if I could pit that against what a church like Rome or the East teaches, then I would be much more qualified, ie, saving faith is a faith that disposes an individual to good works and the virtues of hope and charity- then I start sounding more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Luther073082]

Thanks. Thank helps me to understand those issues alot. Right now I'm a "church seeker" with an orientation towards broad church and charismatic Anglicanism. I spent some time as an Orthodox Catechumen but ultimately felt that the message I was getting was unclear, a crypto-legalism. But I believe my experience may be rarer since, so I am still exploring that (I realize Orthodoxy requires alot of spiritual direction and does not find a western individualist mindset- it is quite dangerous in an individualists hands, in fact, one reason I just sometimes feel the Lutheran Gospel is alot clearer- I'd rather risk antinomianism frankly).

It sounds like confessionalism is in itself not without problems and doesn't necessarily create unity. I could see a confession at best being a general "trajectory" for a church for the purposes of good order or catechism, but I see real dangers in wooden orthodoxy that is not generous and does not recognize the limitations of the systematization of human thought and of human language.

A good example of this- I generally agree that the Bible teaches "justification by faith alone", that that is a legitimate way of talking about it. But if I were to be asked if I could pit that against what a church like Rome or the East teaches, then I would be much more qualified, ie, saving faith is a faith that disposes an individual to good works and the virtues of hope and charity- then I start sounding more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

I don't think you would find absolute unity on every single thing any place in the world, not even in Orthodoxy or the Roman Catholic Church.

But if you are looking at unity as more of a spectrum type of thing, the confessional Lutheran churches are far more united in doctrine between differing church bodies then some of the non-confessional churches are within themselves. I can say that having been a part of both a non-confessional church body and a confessional church body.

I don't want to say too much more to violate the forum rules here, but I would recommend you ask this same question in the main confessional forum to at least get a complete answer from both sides.

 

[Tigger45]

Charismatic Anglicanism is a new one on me. Are there any websites I can go to to check them out?

Thanks. Thank helps me to understand those issues alot. Right now I'm a "church seeker" with an orientation towards broad church and charismatic Anglicanism. I spent some time as an Orthodox Catechumen but ultimately felt that the message I was getting was unclear, a crypto-legalism. But I believe my experience may be rarer since, so I am still exploring that (I realize Orthodoxy requires alot of spiritual direction and does not find a western individualist mindset- it is quite dangerous in an individualists hands, in fact, one reason I just sometimes feel the Lutheran Gospel is alot clearer- I'd rather risk antinomianism frankly).

It sounds like confessionalism is in itself not without problems and doesn't necessarily create unity. I could see a confession at best being a general "trajectory" for a church for the purposes of good order or catechism, but I see real dangers in wooden orthodoxy that is not generous and does not recognize the limitations of the systematization of human thought and of human language.

A good example of this- I generally agree that the Bible teaches "justification by faith alone", that that is a legitimate way of talking about it. But if I were to be asked if I could pit that against what a church like Rome or the East teaches, then I would be much more qualified, ie, saving faith is a faith that disposes an individual to good works and the virtues of hope and charity- then I start sounding more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

 

[FireDragon76]

Charismatic Anglicanism is a new one on me. Are there any websites I can go to to check them out?

Charismatic Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(a very brief wikipedia article)

Charismatic Anglicans are just Anglicans and Episcopalians influenced by the Charismatic movement of the 1960's, similar to Roman Catholic Charismatics This would be in contrast to Reformed Anglicans, who tend to identify more with John Calvin and in many cases reject the idea of charismatic gifts altogether.

Alot of conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians in the US are Charismatics. Reformed Anglicans are more common in Britain but there are alot of Charismatics there too (Holy Trinity Brompton being a famous Charismatic-oriented church, creating the Alpha Course).

Where I live many Episcopalian parishes are Charismatic oriented. The service looks like a typical modern catholic mass with an altar facing the congregation. There is often modern catholic vestments and rituals, maybe icons and similar decorations on the walls. There is sometimes relatively extemporaneous prayers during the service too, and modern style praise music with folk guitars or even drums. The theology and preaching tends more towards the Biblicist end with an emphasis on personal repentance and the atmosphere is more oriented towards emotionality and extroversion. (I myself prefer traditional high-church worship, more broad preaching styles, and traditional hymns but then I'm introverted and find Charismatic culture sometimes cloying).

 

[Daniel Stinson]

What are the practical difference between confessional and non-confessional lutheranism, and what place does the Pietist movement play in mainstream Lutheran self-understanding? I am not an expert on Lutheranism, though I have read Luther's Smaller Catechism, but I would like to learn more- most of my experience has been with Anglicanism (of different parties, mostly charismatic and high church) and Eastern Orthodoxy. My impression of both Christian traditions is that they are both relatively broad, "non-confessional", and have some theological diversity (in the case of Anglicanism, quite a bit), so I am wondering how a tradition that is named after one single historical figure squares up in comparison to traditions that have no specific founder.

Dr. Martin Luther was in support of Philip Melanchthon's writing of the Augsburg Confession of 1530. A Confessional Lutheran is one who believes their confession of faith is most closely associated with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530. It's customary in Confessional Lutheran tradition to place an "UAC" emblem or logo at each of the cornerstones of chapels/churches to profoundly designate their dedication to Confessionalism.

Dr. Martin Luther didn't approve of or support Philip Melanchthon's Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, which was co-signed by John Calvin and many other theologians associated with Reformed Tradition. The 1540 Confession merged the Reformed-Calvinist and Evangelical-Philippist into solidarity at Wittenberg Seminary. The union of Reformed-Calvinist with Evangelical-Philippist is generally known as Crypto-Calvinism among theologians. The Prussian Union is Confessional to this document, under its German Evangelical Synod.

Dr. Martin Luther didn't approve of or support Philip Melanchthon's Altered Augsburg Confession of 1542, which moved the Crypto-Calvinist into a proposed union with the Roman-Catholic Church upon the convened Council of Trent. In 1563 the Roman-Catholic Church adjourned the Council of Trent with very little acceptance of Philip Melanchthon's Altered Augsburg Confession of 1542. In the United States and Western Europe the German Evangelical Synod has changed its name to the United Church of Christ (UCC). The UCC is more confessional to the 1542 Confession alongside the ELCA. Both of which, the UCC and ELCA, are in ongoing talks with the Vatican and Papacy to work out a long-term merger of their theologies.

Confessional Lutheran congregations, like the ELS, WELS, and LCMS either won't participate at all or are removed from dialogue very early in discussions or debates on the substance of theological differences. The original "Gnesio-Lutherans" or 1st generation of Lutheran Orthodoxy began with the Formula of Concord in 1577 and developed into congregations taking on the name "Lutheran Church" rather than Evangelical Church by about 1584. The Book of Concord is the core doctrine of "Gnesio-Lutherans", Orthodox Lutherans, and Confessional Lutherans. Dr. Martin Luther died in 1546 before any "Lutheran" congregations were in official or government chartered existence, and he largely discouraged congregations from giving-up their Catholicity in name. Dr. Martin Chemnitz is generally regarded as the founder of Lutheranism as a stand-alone theology apart from the Evangelical and Reformed Churches, as the core author of the Book of Concord.