SOME THOUGHTS ON “WHERE LCA”.

This Statement on “Where LCA” and the specific interpretation of Scripture and application of doctrine and Lutheran Confessions, was originally prepared for a Vic. District sub-Committee in Jan. 1997. These thoughts are presented in this revised form of brief theses or statements without elaboration so that they stand on their own merits.

The Augsburg Confession has used the formula: We believe, teach and confess--------We reject. I believe that a church which cannot reject, also has problems with what it believes.

I. WORSHIP

A. WE BELIEVE THAT

· a major area of concern in the LCA today is the role of liturgy or structure in worship;

· worship is both private and public;

· the principles of what constitutes both private and public worship are identical;

· the external structure can and does vary between private and public worship;

· God clearly commanded a very structured form of worship in the Old Testament, so structure in worship is not new nor a hindrance;

· the New Testament lays down no set structure for worship to be followed everywhere without exception;

· instead, the broad principle is laid down: “decently and orderly”. It is important to note that this was spoken originally to a situation where God was no longer the centre of worship, but human beings and their actions had replaced God as centre of worship and produced chaotic worship to the detriment of the Gospel;

· notwithstanding the previous two points, the theology of the Church determines the essential features of the worship of the Church. In this sense, even pagan rituals are very structured because of what it is hoped to achieve through their way of worship;

· the Old Testament worship was commanded and structured around the promised Messiah and the required relationship with God as the people worshipped in waiting;

· while it may well happen that a person becomes a Christian for the first time during worship, the primary purpose of worship is the opportunity for the faithful to gather for hearing, learning, praising, praying, singing, serving God etc, at God’s command and invitation;

· a person either not yet a Christian or new to the Christian faith, will initially understand neither the liturgy nor the message being proclaimed fully or at once;

· regular worshippers, both adults and children, may not always clearly see the need for growth in understanding of worship, through regular attendance at that worship, and so to come to see it as a joyful fellowship rather than as a “boring” and “irrelevant” chore to be endured;

· the Church, when making some use of the culture of the times, has filled that culture with its own theological content, thereby upholding God’s call in both Old and New Testaments to be distinct and separate from the world it lives in.

B. WE REJECT THE CLAIM – THAT

a. Structured liturgy is ipso facto a hindrance to people being attracted to the Church, because then

· God is the biggest offender when He ordered the most structured liturgy of all times in the Old Testament;

· doctrine must be removed for it too “offends” and keeps people out of the Church;

· there is a tacit suggestion that “teaching” the liturgy is no particular help in spiritual growth;

· a so-called “new” service order each Sunday militates against the unity of the Church and creates problems for the older members who look for a form which is uni-form and stable;

· we run the risk of the “sickness” of Athens, whose inhabitants constantly sought something new.

b. structured liturgy automatically deadens the spiritual senses, whereas variety stimulates interest and keeps people spiritually “alive”, because then

· an alternative to the “Word” as Means of Grace, has been introduced, to bring about both spiritual re-birth, and the food needed to maintain that new life;

· much depends upon who is the leader, or upon who is the worship team, with at least the danger of transfering the centre away from Christ the Lord, and the Spirit sent to bring human beings to Jesus;

· entertainment becomes the key, by opening the door to some sort of subjectivisim seen particularly in all forms of “Renewal” movements whether Lutheran or otherwise;

· the variation becomes important, thus creating the very problem which it is supposed to remove;

· a unilateral action, based on rugged individualism, becomes the norm and service orders, other than the accepted forms of the LCA, are used, sometimes with a theology contrary to that of the LCA and also intended to be “user-friendly”;

c. the older musical forms are a hindrance to proper and attractive worship because then

· the uncritical use of the musical style of the secular and sinful world, can blur the necessary distinction between sacred and secular;

· form and style can become more important than theological content seeing that hymns are meant to speak the theology of the church, and of the local worshipping body, the congregation;

· the subjective theology of Reformed churches, specifically Baptist, Assemblies of God and the Renewal movement in general, replaces the objective theology of Word and Sacrament as centre of worship and concentrates instead on making people “feel good”.

· emotions, while playing a role in our worship life, are never to be dominant, particularly where they lead to the exclusion of such elements of worship as: The Confession and Absolution, even the Trinitarian invocation;

· bands and singers while certainly having their place in leading worship, need to be guided away from being centre stage and so proving to be a distraction rather than an aid to worship.

II. SCRIPTURE AS AUTHORITY.

A. WE BELIEVE THAT

a. rationalism, particularly in regard to Inspiration, has always been a threat to the Lutheran Church;

b. rationalism has led to this understanding of Inspiration: What is true for me is inspired, even if another person may take an entirely contrary view and still claim inspiration;

c. “development of doctrine” has no place within the Christian Church in general, nor in the LCA;

d. the Theses of Agreement have clearly laid down what we believe concerning Inspiration as part of the basis for union of the two Lutheran Churches, and the implications of the Theses for continuing faith and life of the LCA;

e. this Thesis on “Inspiration” flowed through to Article II in the Constitutions of the Church, Districts, Congregations, Parishes and all Committees;

f. Inspiration is the authority for Pastors and all teachers of the Word to say: Thus says the Lord.

B. WE REJECT

a. the claim that an authoritative Scripture limits the academic freedom of the theologian, because then

· the theologian could be placed above the Scriptures as authority and could be seen as determining what is and is not acceptable doctrine, especially when it is the theologian who is quoted rather than the Scriptures;

· the theologian could be seen as “free” to do exploratory studies especially where these run counter to the Scriptures and the accepted teachings of the church;

· the theologian could be seen as “exempt” from any forms of discipline on doctrinal grounds, even while the need remains to re-examine our position from time to time;

· the theologian could be seen as “exempt” from his vow to uphold the confessions of the Church.

b. the claim that the use of specific texts to establish doctrines of the church becomes something refered to as “proof-texting”, because then

· Jesus, Paul and Peter are guilty of “proof-texting” for they all said: Have you never read…?

· dogmatics as a theological discipline, even if given a new name today, becomes more a matter of the skill of the theologian than a reflection on individual, or groups, of text(s) which have always determined doctrine in the church;

· it becomes possible to promote “Development of Doctrine” under the guise of something called “whole of Scripture” to determine dogma in the church even to the point where established teachings based on texts can then be rejected because “whole of Scripture” has decreed otherwise;

· even homosexuality, as a sin, can be rationalized away as was done some years ago in an interim report on Sexuality presented to an assembly in the UCA;

· the ordination of homosexuals and the ordination of women can be approved contrary to the Scripture condemnation;

· the faith of laypeople of the LCA is undermined, in that what they were once taught as authority of the Scriptures is now left open to individuals to determine e.g. enlightened theologians;

· the objective authority of Scripture which once strengthened and encouraged pastor and people alike, is then subject to the morass of human interpretation instead;

· even the “dreamtime” of Aboriginal folk lore can be given something of equal authority and value with the Scriptures as speaking God’s will to them, even before the coming of the Christian faith;

· the devil was closer to the truth than he was given, and is still given, credit for today when he said: You will become like God, knowing good and evil;

· expository preaching becomes irrelevant and can be replaced by often insipid and watered down offerings under the cloak of relativity or being “user-friendly”.

III. CONGREGATION STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION.

A. WE BELIEVE THAT

a. the Scriptures determine the nature of what a congregation is and what its task and authority are;

b. a congregation is a gathering for worship of people who are at the same time saint and sinner;

c. a congregation continues to exist even when those same people as saints, disperse from that gathering to wherever they happen to live and work, in order to be light, salt and bearers of an eternal message to those outside who are lost and dying;

d. this same group of people is continuously aware or need to be made aware that they still remain “sinners” who are not always light and salt and spreading the message of salvation in the world, and do not live and work together always in harmony, and so require regular cleansing and renewal through Word and Sacrament in worship;

e. a congregation lives in society as a visible entity, which is required by law of the land to have a legal identity, and so that they may wisely manage the resources God has given whether of money, property or people in keeping with God’s directions.

B. WE REJECT THE CLAIM

a. that constitutions are law only and therefore are a hindrance to the freedom of the Gospel because then

· the sections which deal with “discipline” and based on Matthew 18, have become law;

· the duties of the Pastor become Law instead of declaring what his duties are in relation to Gospel preaching;

· the duties outlined for members of the congregation and also for elders, have become Law rather than an expression of Gospel practice.

b. that the power and work of the Spirit is hindered through the constitutional provisions of elders and various councils and committees and therefore need to be removed because then

· also safeguards built into the constitution on questions of false teaching are too easily removed as well;

· pastors can be tempted to go their own way to become a law to themselves, and so opening the way for conflict with the safeguards provided through elders and their duties and responsibilities;

· the principles of business practice from the secular world can become the basis for determining how and where a church is planted and is supposed to grow, and then casting aspersions on the apparent lack of growth in certain areas, or holding up as an example places which are showing apparent growth based on those principles;

· in reality, the Pastor becomes the real decider, rather than the Holy Spirit who works through word and Sacrament.

IN CONCLUSION.

I believe that in recent years, the practice of church discipline has lapsed in many areas of the LCA, so that those committed with responsibility in this area , have in fact failed to carry out their duties. Consequently, we have lost something at least of WHAT WE BELIEVE because we have failed clearly and decisively to state: AND THIS WE REJECT.

This has applications not just with reference to other churches but also within our own. I believe that this is mostly clearly seen in the arguments being advanced for permitting the Ordination of women. We cannot claim the blessing of God while at the same time, pursuing paths which are contrary to His revealed word.

Geoff Noller – Ararat – 5/7/2002