* Dr. Arthur A. Just, Jr. Topic: “Lex orandi, lex credendi: Sacramental Unity in the Midst of Biblical Diversity”

This was basically a paper on liturgical, or churchly hermeneutics. Braaten/Jensen and Brevard Childs sort of talk. I did not consider it to be plowing new ground, since I’ve had Dr. Just for about ever class he’s ever taught. But he did a very nice job of putting the pieces together, and helping us to understand how the interpretation of Scripture happens most clearly in a liturgical and churchly context. Although he didn’t really expound upon it, the obvious connection in my mind is that the Scriptures are most clearly interpreted according to their intent in preaching. More on that another time.

* Dr. Lawrence R. Rast, Jr. Topic: “J. A. O. Preus: Theologian, Churchman, or Both”

I only heard the second half of this paper, much to my great chagrin. What I heard was quite good. He rightly observes that JAO Preus should not be villified as a political hack out for power, nor sainted as a “pure” theologian. The true is probably somewhere in between. I didn’t hear enough of it to speak more on this one.

* The Reverend Paul Robert Sauer. Topic: “Out of Step or Before His Times: Berthold von Schenk”

This was probably the paper that I found the most interesting, along with Shuta’s. He basically gave a biography in summary of the life of Berthold von Schenk, the founder of the St. James Society and early proponent for liturgical renewal in the LCMS. It was a largely uncritical presentation, as Sauer is the pastor at von Schenk’s former congregation. However, given the fact that nobody in the LCMS knows anything about this man, that didn’t bother me overmuch. We’ll have to wait for a more critical evaluation.

* Dr. David P. Scaer. Topic: “Making a Difference: The Theology of Robert D. Preus”

This one is hard to evaluate. Scaer’s life is so intertwined with RDP’s life, it’s difficult to separate if you are Scaer. I’ll frankly have to reread it in order to really understand it. One thing that I did take with me on this one was his observation about “top down” verses “bottom up” Christology, comparing Marquart’s to his view. I’d like to think on that more.

* Dr. David R. Schmitt. Topic: “Goal, Malady, Means as Law-Gospel Ersatz in the Theology of Richard R. Caemmerer”

This was a paper I wasn’t intending to hear, but he kinda sucked me in. First of all, it was masterfully presented. Clear, well thought out and rehearsed I’d even say. His point was that Caemmerer’s Goal/Malady/Means was laudable, but that it is now caricatured to such a degree that it is almost unrecognizable. I’d like to read more on the topic.

* Dr. Philip J. Secker. Topic: “”A Pilgrimage not Taken: Arthur Carl Piepkorn”

This was one of the paper’s I was most looking forward to hearing, and hence I was most disappointed. I have always found Piepkorn to be one of the greatest enigmas in the history of the LCMS. I want to know more about him. Unfortunately, Secker is not the man to do that. His paper was hesitant and sometimes just plain bombastic. I think his goal was to demonstrate that A) Piepkorn would have walked out had he been alive and B) That Piepkorn would support women’s ordination to day were he alive. I find both of those really hard to believe, given the evidence, and Secker just made the presentation difficult to hear. Bummer. It could have been great.

* Dr. Richard J. Shuta. Topic: “Dr. Walter A. Maier as Evangelical Preacher”

This one was worth the price of admission. Shuta is a bit of a difficult person to hear sometimes, but the topic was dynamite. He began to demonstrate that WAM I is the missing link between Billy Sunday and Billy Graham. He had evidence, and lots of it. I can’t wait to read the paper, and more of what he has to say. With WAM I and Piepkorn, you really see two of the major strands that influence the LCMS today. What a history.

* Dr. Robert L. Wilken. Topic: “A Pilgrim from Wittenberg to Constantinople: Jaroslav Pelikan”

This paper was gentle and beautiful. Wilken, a student and longtime friend of Pelikan, basically showed how Pelikan’s move from Lutheranism to Eastern Orthodoxy was much more of a kind of inevitable move of his studies than anything else. Pelikan also had simply no use for Protestantism, and the more he say American Lutheranism take on the characteristics of mainline Protestantism, the more he disliked it. See the comments on WAM I above.

It wasn’t a critical read, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Well, that’s my initial thoughts on the symposia. What are yours?

P

Symposia: Exegetical and Confessional Theology (Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN)

-LL

FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Richard John Neuhaus, 1936–2009.

1. Diversity
2. Unity.
3. Mission

He has some good points that are worth considering. I think I would retool them in the following way:

1. Catholicity
2. Theological Unity
3. Mission

The Church, in order to be the Church, is the place where the Holy Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies. That’s why we have the Church. In order for that to happen, there almost by definition must be a gathering of disparate groups of people from various walks of life. They must be called and gathered BY something (the Word), and then must be called and gathered FOR something. They are called by the Word, and that same Word in turn sends them out to gather more. It is a cycle. When the cycle breaks down, it is usually a sign that there is something wrong with #2.

What do you think? Does Yancey have a point? Does this work with our Lutheran theology?

-LL

Denominational Diagnostics | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction: “”

(Via Christianity Today.)

-LL

read more

Here’s the citation I’d like to think on a bit:

To Prof. Stephen Prothero, large numbers of Americans leaving organized religion and large numbers still embracing the fervor of evangelical Christianity point to the same desires.

“The trend is toward more personal religion, and evangelicals offer that,” said Mr. Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University, who explained that evangelical churches tailor many of their activities for youth. “Those losing out are offering impersonal religion and those winning are offering a smaller scale: mega-churches succeed not because they are mega but because they have smaller ministries inside.”

Cell groups, small group ministries, prayer circles, these are the bywords of church growth. They emphasize individual spiritual journeys over the objective Word, personal prayer over a prayerlife rooting in the Psalms, and the sacrament of experience over our Lord’s Sacraments.

This trend is hardly a new one. The Church goes through cycles of rationalism and pseudo-spiritualism about every few centuries or so. Fritz Baue, in his book, The Spiritual Society: What Lurks Beyond Post-Modernism, calls the time we are in now the Therian Age. He writes:

“Paganism is always tolerant,” said Herman Sasse. The spirit of the Therian Age – that beast from the earth – is a friendly beast, large and comfortable, warm and fuzzy, weolcoming and inclusive, like a great big lovable bear you’d like to hug. In its great arms are enfolded all children of disparate beliefs . . . as long as they love each other. Men and women, gay and straight, find common ground. Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Jew, liberal and conservative – all are welcome. Love encompasses all. ((Frederick Baue, The Spiritual Society: What Lurks Beyond Postmodernism? Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2001. Pages 179-180.))

This radical individualism makes spirituality an entirely personal quest. There is no sense of community, far less any kind of received truth or objective reality. Why should people hold to denominational loyalties when their beliefs are based more on television and fiction than on any kind of tradition?

Of course, Lutherans are not immune to this. Confessional Lutheranism may be found in any number of Lutheran church bodies. I don’t think there is one church body that I would simply identify as confessional. Conservative? Yes. Liberal? Yes. But not confessional.

So does this mean that confessional Lutherans need to wash with the tide, go where things seem best at the time? As a layman, I would suggest that you have an obligation to provide for the spiritual care and well-being of your family. That may mean one church body in one place, and another in another place. I wish it were not so, but my wishing doesn’t change a thing.

As a pastor, however, it is a different story. There you have an obligation to the flock God has entrusted to your care. You have your ordination vow to uphold. You also have the reality that things almost never change at the congregational level in much less than 5-10 years, and oftentimes much longer. At the synodical level, things are even slower than that. So while it may be painful, unless a church body commits utter apostasy, I think it’s pretty tough to justify flipping from one church body to the next.

Any other thoughts out in cyber-world about that one?

-Lutheran Logomaniac