Quia … Quatenus

In recent times a retired pastor, senior to me, made the following statement:  “When I am really feeling down, I wonder whether there is a future for the LCA.  But, then when I am feeling a little better, I wonder whether the LCA will finish up in the Church of Rome or with the AOG”

The Church of Jesus Christ is in His hands.   He will not forsake His Church!   However, the question for us, and particularly the pastors of the LCA, whether in the active ministry or retired, is this: have we remained faithful to our Ordination vows to carry out faithfully the ministry entrusted to us "in accordance with the holy Scriptures and the confessions of the Lutheran Church"?  (Church Rites p. 140)

The symbolical writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 seem to be a problem for some - perhaps for many.   At the time of our Ordination we may not have been fully conversant with the Book in its entirety.   And this may still be the case.   But we would have had a pretty thorough instruction in the Unaltered Augustana.   (The remaining writings, some would say, are really an elaboration of the Augustana.)   However, at our Ordination we did not claim to know everything in the confessions, or indeed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.   We did know that we should go on studying the Holy Scriptures and the confessional writings.   We probably spent some time studying the Holy Scriptures in preparing our sermons and Bible studies.   But the confessions?

We possibly sought inspiration from popular books telling us how our ministry would be effective - successful - if we only faithfully followed the advice - the programmes - of these publications.   That the authors of these programs may not have been committed to the Lutheran confessions probably never bothered us.   As long as they claimed they were 'Lutheran' and especially if they were 'Pastor of First Lutheran Church - 51st Street' with a membership of several thousand attending every Sunday.   Perhaps the authors were not even 'Lutheran' - but that didn't matter, as long as they could tell us how we could join the throng of those with huge numbers on our list!   How gullible some of us often became!

But why must we be so committed to our confessions?  Can't we change them?   We are living in a changing world where everything is changing!

Our Ordination vows are to be a guarantee to our congregations that we will proclaim the Word and administer the Sacraments as faithful servants of the Lord of the Church.   If we turn our backs on the confessions and preach and teach some other wisdom, we are reneging on what we promised before the Altar.

Some would argue:  we are merely giving our people what they want!   Our Ordination does not authorize us to give our people what they may want - no matter how much they clamour for it.   We are to give them what they need in accordance with Christ's command.

There has often been considerable debate in world Lutheranism concerning the exact nature of our commitment towards the confessional writings:  quia or quatenus (because or in so far as)?   Do we subscribe to them 'because' they agree with Scripture, or 'in so far as' they agree?

There are those who would like to subscribe to the symbolical writings 'quatenus' - 'in so far as' they are a true exposition of Scripture.   Their argument goes something like this:  Over the years there has been much scholarship throwing new light on the Scriptures, giving us new insights.   New understandings are being opened up to our generation.

'Quatenus' is the philosophy of the Reformed Churches, of Reformed theology:  as we get new and better insights, so our confessions must always be updated.   'Quia' believes and accepts the unchangeable truths of God's Word.   The confessions need as little updating as does Holy Scripture itself, because they are a true exposition of the Scriptures.   We can only preach with conviction if we are convinced that what we preach is the pure doctrine of the Word.

There is a further problem with 'quatenus'.   'Quatenus' over against the confessions can easily lead to 'quatenus' over against the Holy Scriptures.  (c.f. The Lonely Way  Vol. 1, p. 460)

'Quatenus' is the philosophy of the Reformed churches - ever since Reformation times.   For us Lutherans 'quia' expresses our attitude towards the confessions, what is meant by our Ordination vows to be faithful in our ministry "in accordance with the holy Scriptures and the confessions of the Lutheran Church".

Often Lutherans themselves cannot understand why we do not have Altar and Pulpit fellowship with Reformed churches.   Ever since Reformation times the Reformed have seen their task as leading the Lutheran Church to a completion of the Reformation - especially to free us from our Scriptural doctrine of the Supper.   Calvin's doctrine of the Supper denied the Real Presence.   There was indeed a period when it was thought that Calvin would agree with Luther with respect to the Supper - i.e. until Calvin came to realize that the Real Presence would mean that also the unbeliever received the true Body and Blood of Christ - to his/her judgement.   This Calvin could not accept.

The matter of 'union' between Lutheran and Reformed Churches has often been raised.   Last century a Continental theologian - Karl Barth - (often some Lutherans mistakenly believed he was a Lutheran!) put forward his conception of 'union': an 'emerging' Church - which seems to be close to the philosophy of the Uniting Church.   Since it is a 'uniting' - not a 'united' Church, some of its members have on occasions expressed the wish that we ought to be in together with them!

To raise the question of Altar Fellowship between Lutheran Reformed Churches can become very unpleasant because for the Reformed the denial of Altar Fellowship is the sin of schism.   (c.f. the one-time LCA-UC dialogue which foundered rather embarrassingly on this very issue.)   But for Lutherans the Reformed doctrine of the Supper (the denial of the Real Presence) is heresy!

For us, either Luther correctly explained the Sacrament of the Altar or he did not.   If Luther's explanation is wrong, then for the sake of truthfulness, we would have to renounce our ordination vows.   But before we take such a fateful step, we need to examine very carefully what Christ Himself said about the Supper when He instituted it, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke and which Paul also quotes  (1 Cor.11:23 ff.)

Paul leaves us in no doubts about the 'real presence'.   He writes:  "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord".   Paul immediately goes on to add:  "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.   For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself".  (NIV vv.27-29)

Paul's exhortation "to examine himself" has almost universally been explained as a rigorous examination of our sinful lives - in the light of the Ten Commandments.   This is indeed a very good exercise.   But I believe there is much more to the 'examining' than that.   The Greek in v. 28 uses the verb ‘dokimazeto’.   This is the verb used with respect to examining the genuineness of a substance (die Aechtheit einer Sache (z.B. eines Metalls) untersuchen, d.h, pruefen')  (Schirlitz) Liddell and Scott seems to agree:  to assay metals, to prove, to examine.   The 'examination' to which Paul refers here would then mean checking the real substance of the bread and wine - what it really is - what it contains, viz. that it "is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (which is) given with (the) bread and wine".  This ties in exactly with v.29: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment upon himself", as well as v.27: "whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord". (NIV)

Luther's contention over against Calvin is that all who participate - also unbelievers - eat and drink the true body and blood of Christ - the unbeliever to his/her damnation.

On this basis, how then could we adopt the practice of 'Open Communion'?  At my final Service before retiring just 19 years ago, a retired Presbyterian minister whom I knew very well, was seated in a back pew.   Shaking hands at the door, he chided me for not inviting "all who love the Lord" to partake of the Sacrament!   Failing to do so, I was probably guilty of 'schism' in his eyes!

I would think that most of us, if not all of us, have at some time, wittingly or unwittingly, sinned by allowing some to participate who do not agree with 1 Cor. 11, 27-29.   Like all believing souls we need to seek consolation in that same forgiveness which we are (or have been) constantly proclaiming in Christ's name to the penitent.

'Closed/close Communion' may often not be easy to maintain.   It can be a real problem; we don't want to offend for a variety of reasons.   However, not to offend against Scripture should always be of paramount importance.   Since all now seem to have pew bulletins, at least a carefully worded brief paragraph should always be found in the bulletin, clearly stating the Scriptural case re the Sacrament.

But even among regular worshippers there may also be those who in fact would subscribe to the Reformed interpretation.   Can we be sure that even all our pastors are committed to the Fifth/Sixth Chief Part of the Small Catechism?   If all were thus committed, how could it be possible that Reformed songs/hymns are frequently sung in connection with the celebration of the Sacrament?   This seems to be very widely the case when using Altogether Books or TIS.   [The hymns in TIS under the heading of 'Communion' can be divided roughly into 3 categories.   1.  A few with which Lutherans should have no problems.  2.  A number which could be interpreted according to one's beliefs.   (King Friedrich Wilhelm III!)  3.  A lot which are clearly Reformed.]   Communion hymns from the Lutheran Hymnal seem rarely to be used - not even that tremendous Luther hymn so eminently suitable for Christmas morning - No. 295.   Unfortunately when it is used it is so often sung as a dirge  (The original time-signature was 'alla breve', which implies a faster tempo than 4/2 or 4/4 or C.)

It is little wonder that people, including some pastors, are crying out for 'Open Communion' when the appropriate hymns of the Church are no longer used, when people are bombarded with Reformed 'Communion' songs/hymns.   "We cannot withhold God's 'grace', "is the catchcry, implying that it is not possible to eat and drink judgement to oneself, not recognizing the Lord's body.

The Sacrament of the Altar is all important: it is the lynchpin of Lutheran theology and the hymnody of the Church plays a most important role in its proclamation!

Have we forgotten one of the main reasons why Luther introduced hymns:  as a means for educating worshippers in the Christian faith!   But how can our hymns achieve this goal if they are not used?   On the other hand, using Reformed songs/hymns we are helping to educate people not to believe in the Real Presence. And another important aspect about the Hymnbook:  it is the only Prayer Book of the LCA in addition to the Psalms!

The 2000 General Synod of the LCA resolved re 'Together in Song’, TIS: Australian Hymn Book ll (Agenda 12.1) that Synod "urge pastors and congregations to consider the use of the rich resources in Together in Song:  Australian Hymn Book II, with its many new songs and settings of the psalms and its inclusive language versions of well-known hymns".   In passing this resolution Synod apparently conveniently forgot the Confessional paragraphs of all Constitutions of the Church.

Whether or not TIS has 'rich resources' - a purely subjective assessment - or not, is not the issue.   (But for one of our grandest Chorales - 'Wachet auf' - TIS has used the isometric version - long since disregarded by the LCA in favour of the original rhythmic form.)

The first 'Australian Hymnbook' was published soon after the formation of the 'Uniting Church' in the late 70's. One of the stated purposes for this publication, we often heard at the time, was to bring the various denominations closer together through singing the same hymns so that eventually all denominations would form one church.   It did not happen.   Hence the Australian Hymnbook II.  This time real efforts were made to get the various denominations to participate, including the LCA.   Lutherans are now told: 'we had input!'  'Input' does not make it a  'Lutheran" hymnbook!

The first Lutheran migration to Australia was the product of religious persecution.   In the early 19th Century the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III tried to force a union between Lutheran and Reformed congregations which largely succeeded.   The King, with his spiritual advisers, compiled a new Church book - a Service Book, a Liturgy and Agenda.   It was consciously designed as a compromise between Lutheran and Reformed theology - with language elastic enough so that both Churches could use it - including the celebration of the Sacrament - with a clear conscience!   An effective means for promoting the Union!   Lutherans who in 1838 (and later) migrated to Australia did so because they resisted this Union Church with its compromise Service Book.

History has the uncanny knack of repeating itself.   With TIS the LCA is today faced with an almost identical situation as the first Lutherans who migrated to this country almost 200 years ago.   That a General Synod of the LCA, encouraged by its leaders, could not see this beggars belief.   I am of the firm opinion that the General Synod resolution in 2000 re TIS is in violation of the Confessional Paragraphs of all Constitutions of the LCA - the only paragraphs of constitutions which may never be altered.    And in doing so, judgment has been passed on those first Lutheran migrants for the stance they took.    

Have we really ditched the Fifth Chief Part of the Small Catechism?   Have we really forgotten the main purpose of hymns/songs - to educate, instruct, teach, build up the faith - not to destroy it?  c.f. 'Altogether Now' No. 69, a very glaring example of Zwinglian theology and which seems to be frequently used   "Eat my bread and drink my wine", we are taught to sing - it is bread and wine!   We go to the Altar and we hear - "the Body of Christ ... the blood of Christ".   Well? What is it?   At best confusion for the participant.   At worst...?

It is completely unrealistic to imagine that 'judicious' use is - or will be - made of other song or hymn books. Sadly we have made this experience again and again over the years.                          

I have no quarrel with Reformed churches putting out their own hymn book.   They are quite entitled to do so.   But, by the same token, Lutherans are entitled to have their own hymn book.   TIS does not claim to be a 'Lutheran' hymn book and it is no 'Lutheran' hymnal despite the LCA having had some 'input.'   I understand every Lutheran Church in the English speaking world uses a Lutheran hymn book.

Our only ray of hope in this sad matter is the OPENBOOK.   Due to public pressure at the 2003 General Synod it became known that there was a real clamour for the hymn book to be re-printed.   About a year ago the Openbook let it be known that if it received enough prepaid orders it would print again the Lutheran Hymnal.   The results surprised everyone, except those who had their ears to the ground:  2000 plus another 500 for the Lutheran Church in South Africa!   And an additional re-print of 500 of the large print hymnal is now envisaged!   So great is the demand.

I understand the re-print would have taken place much earlier but for the intervention of the 'Commission on Worship' which did not want it reprinted, apparently because of its 'out-dated and non-inclusive language'.  So, 'up-dated and inclusive language' and also some other reasons - such as new translations of older hymns were more important than Confessional loyalty!   One of the often heard reasons given for not re-printing the Lutheran Hymnal was that to do so would be cost-prohibitive.   We now know that this was not the case! Those of us who wanted a new copy were quite happy to pay $45 including postage.

The introduction of TIS must in due course further undermine the confessional character of the LCA.   A debt of gratitude is due to the Openbook for its contribution towards the inevitable delay of the demise of the inheritance received from our Lutheran Pilgrim Fathers!  -  And what about the Catechism?   Is it perhaps next in the firing line?

Kyrie eleison!

Konrad Hartmann - pastor emeritus

3/14 Kincraig Cres, Modbury  SA  5092  08 8263 2345

The Festival of the Transfiguration of our Lord 2005