I think that is excellent advice. Of course, one should also read other assessments of the same patristic and historical material. At the end of the day, though, if one can read one's way into or out of a faith without prayer, worship and struggle, then one's sight is likely not clear - reading only does so much. We can't learn to swim by reading a manual after all... :)
After a good faith effort at research and study, we simply have to make the best, most prayerful choice we can based on both the head and heart/nous information we have been able to gather while praying 'Lord, have mercy'.
And on that we don't disagree one bit, Christopher. And let us charitably commend those who make choices we would not make to the mercy of our gracious heavenly Father. I always come back to the rather haunting words of Sasse: "In this sinful world, where lies are fathered on every hand, what is lie and what is truth cannot be known if there is no line between them... And when here on earth the tragic case occurs, which happens again and again where the question of truth is earnestly engaged, that one confession of faith is set against another, conscience against conscience, then we must leave the decision to Him who in the Last Judgment will finally separate truth from error. We do not know God's judgments and we can and may not anticipate them. Also when we speak the damnamus against a false teaching, God's forgiving grace may bring the erring sinner into the church triumphant, where there is no more untruth. On the other hand, this door will be shut to many a one who has done battle for the truth in perfect orthodoxy, but has forgotten that he too was only a poor sinner who lives only by forgiving grace." We Confess: the Church, p. 57, 58
I agree, Christine. There is about his writings not merely an intellectual rigor (Christopher, don't take this the wrong way, but it reminds me of reading St. Maximos!), but there is also a humility and kindness, a holiness, that I don't think he's even aware that he is showing.
I read Krauth and liked him tremendously. The problem I had was not with what he said so much as my own conclusion that while Krauth won the theological battle of his time, he nevertheless lost the theological war. Of course, it is important to note that I was standing in a different place than are most of you here.
I'm not seriously contemplating a swim, but if I were I don't think that Krauth or any other particular author would be the sure inoculation against it.
No matter how marvelous Krauth is (and I have not read him, so I can't say), at best he will deliver only "Book Lutheranism." And Book Lutheranism, like Book Orthodoxy or Book Catholicism, can only be a shadow of the real thing. The person who is seriously contemplating a swim has found something about his current confession that undermines its legitimacy in a fundamental way. If that legitimacy is to be restored, it will have to happen in the actuality of the life of the Church; a book, no matter how good, cannot accomplish that.
I suppose I shall have to read Krauth one day; but if the reading of a book could decide one's ecclesial affiliation, Fr John Behr would have made me Orthodox again in a heartbeat.
God gave us His Word also in a Book and thus the theological endeavor has always called forth books reflecting on the Book that bears witness to the Word Enfleshed. Our faith and books are not foes of each other!
What Krauth describes is not merely a book theology; but a theology by which people may bear the crosses of their lives, suffer in patience and love, and then joyfully die in faith in the Savior's forgiveness, mercy and love.
He gave us His Word in the womb of the Holy Virgin. The Bible is an icon of that Word; it is not itself that Word.
When the Church uses the Scriptures in the liturgical assembly to proclaim Christ, then the Bible becomes a means by which we come into communion with Him. It is in that ecclesial and liturgical use that the Scriptures came to be Scriptures, and apart from that use it is doubtful whether they can be called "Scripture" at all.
This may seem a tangent from what you are saying about Krauth, but it really is not. The person who has his toe in the Tiber or the Bosporus is often one who sees something broken in the ecclesial and liturgical life of his or her Church body. And if that is broken, then the Scriptures are not being rightly used and the Gospel is not being rightly communicated. A book which describes a theology that is not being lived in the liturgy of one's Church body is simply not going to help.
I wouldn't disagree if you mean "liturgically" to include all prayerful reading of the Sacred Scriptures (which also call themselves the Word of God - they do not merely contain it, in the sense of God speaking, they ARE God speaking). But to suggest that the Sacred Scripture can only be heard aright within the context of the Divine Service or the Daily Office is something I think no father of the Church would ever say - and most certainly not St. John Chrysostom.
Even when we read the Bible privately, our reading and understanding of it is grounded in the Church's use of Scripture in the liturgical assembly. It should form the context of Scripture even when we are using the Scriptures outside of it.
That I do not dispute; but the SCRIPTURE is what shapes the liturgical experience rather than the liturgical experience being what shapes the Scripture. Still, I readily grant that we experience a joyous unfolding of Scripture through liturgical experience. Anyone who has sung: "Arise, O Lord, You and the ark of Your covenant" on the day of Mary's dormition will never think of the passage in quite the same way again...
...the SCRIPTURE is what shapes the liturgical experience rather than the liturgical experience being what shapes the Scripture.
And there, my good friend, is the rub; and on two counts. First, there is the suggestion of abstracting Scripture as a thing in itself apart from its necessary context (as if reading it, prayerfully or devotionally, is a means of grace). And second, there is the (no doubt unintended) bifurcation of liturgy and Scripture, as if perhaps the Spirit is more alive in one and less alive (or at least sublimated) in the other. God forbid!
...the SCRIPTURE is what shapes the liturgical experience rather than the liturgical experience being what shapes the Scripture.
I think that as a simple historical matter this is not true. In both the Old Covenant and the New, the saving acts of God come first, then the community's liturgical anamnesis and participation in those events, and only then the Scriptural record. Certainly in the case of the New Covenant, the "shape of the liturgy" and therefore the liturgical experience of the Church long pre-date the writing, dissemination, and canonization of the New Testament. As Dix wrote, the Apostolic paradosis of practice, like the Apostolic paradosis of doctrine, is something which actually ante-dates the writing of the New Testament documents themselves by some two or three decades. It is presupposed by those documents and referred to more than once as authoritative in them.
Let me put it another way, Chris, the Words and promises of God, which are also contained in the Scripture, shape and mold the Church's liturgical experience. I think *The Living God* put it well when its authors wrote:
"The pettiness and sins of the Christian people pass away in the course of history, but the Word of God remains and never ceases to be heard in the sermons and the church services. The Word of God is the permanent element in the life of the Church, defining its form and directing its development, despite the mediocrity of its members. God Himself expresses this idea through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 55:10-11 is cited)."
Fr. John,
It is certainly a point of difference between Orthodoxy and Lutheran theology.
I'd been thinking on my way in this morning that whether one sees the Bible as part of the lex orandi or the lex credendi is important - and an underlying difference that Chris, Pr. Weedon and Fr. John have already stumbled onto discussing. I guess it is also important which of the two one gives preeminence to and which one holds to 'first'.
And Book Lutheranism, like Book Orthodoxy or Book Catholicism, can only be a shadow of the real thing.
I don't think any Lutheran would base the entire sum of his ecclesiastical/spiritual life on one book anymore than a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would. But there are books and there are books. Krauth's keen insights and defense of the Confessions and the Real Presence make him stand out among many.
He helped me to see once again that my swim over the Tiber to Rome was not where I should be and for that I am truly grateful.
I agree with CJ when he says that no book will do it. It is quite correct that when one swims he/she has found something fundamentally flawed in his existing denomination. This flaw is something that he experienced and through this experience, he takes and uses as an interpreter i.e. convinces him of the flaw.
Therefore even if Krauth gives a good apology it will not convince if what the subject experiences is not consonant with what Krauth defends.
I have seen this in the internet. I have seen folk from non-denom evangelicalism parking for a while at Wittenberg then taking their tent and pitching it either in Rome or Constantinople.
LP, that is an exceptional assessment. And in my estimate accurately sums up why someone can't just read their way into Lutheranism, Orthodoxy or whatever. Sure, it may start with reading but the whole has to be congruent for a person to see it as authentic and that whole also includes experience, not just knowledge obtained from reading.
Yes...that's the Christine of the former Christine / PE wars on Schutz's blog. PE won her over so the wars are not nearly as exciting any more! ;)
Indeed, I do not at all disagree that no one can learn what Lutheranism is from a book; one learns it most of all under the press of the cross, which happens in real life. But I do note how near I personally was to abandoning Lutheranism because of what I have come to believe were arguments against our faith that had answers which I had never heard - and so which I believed HAD no answer. Krauth supplies those answers. Assuming that others might be in a similar boat, I recommend Krauth above all as the place to discover them. Does that make any sense?
Makes sense to me. You know what kept you Lutheran and you share that.
I was looking at it in a broader way because, as you know, many people start their way to Orthodoxy by reading and that is not enough. It hit me a bit personally...I blogged about it.
But I do note how near I personally was to abandoning Lutheranism because of what I have come to believe were arguments against our faith that had answers which I had never heard - and so which I believed HAD no answer. Krauth supplies those answers.
Exactly spot on, Pastor Weedon. My experience also in returning to my Lutheran roots after my Roman sojourn.
My experience has been that the 'disconnect' or perceived 'flaw' is really only gives one the opportunity to look at something else, and look at it with new eyes. When everything is going along hunkey-dorey, ain't nothin' broke, so ain't nothin' need fixin'. When something is broken or when one is cut to the quick, then one looks around. Whether they go somewhere, where they go, if they default to Nothing, or whether they stay put are separate series of questions and issues. The cat can't get out if you don't leave the door open. (This is true of every community or movement, religious or otherwise).
I suppose that's true. But what I wanted to stress with Krauth is that Orthodox and Roman apologists DO make theological and historical attacks upon Lutheranism - and those attacks can be devastating and convincing if one has not encountered a Lutheran response. Krauth seems to have anticipated much of this current struggle and he offers such a response. Note please: not a response for justifying a straying Synod, but a response for why he is and remained a Lutheran Christian despite the Synodical mess he had to deal with - and his was worse than ours!
Nah, PE didn't "win me over." He just helped me to remember what was there long ago. I was Lutheran long before I was Roman Catholic, and truth be told, the Lutheran part never really left even while I was at Rome.
..one learns it most of all under the press of the cross, which happens in real life...
My good friend, my guess is either you've overstated your point or I've misunderstood it (or its context). What seems to be said is that the hardness of life teaches Lutheranism; or that the hardness of life is what leads one to become a Lutheran. I'm sure that's not correct since there are many (i.e., Buddha) who did not learn that lesson after observing the afflictions or press of life.
I would like to think that you intended to say that the hardness or press of life confirms the Lutheranism that one has learned. If that is the case, then where does the learning first occur?
What I was referring to was that true worship which the Tractatus describes as the struggle of faith wrestling with despair - as it presses and presses hard, one becomes a person who learns to rely upon the divine promises and on them alone. And such a person is a Lutheran - no matter what his ecclesial jurisdiction. :)
And if you think the wars have calmed down on the Aussie blog, drop over -- there's a blogoshperic shoot-out across several threads going on now.
However, I'm not there to win anybody over either. I'm there because I used to be where they think they are, and they aren't even remotely close to being there.
Except for the real estate and bank accounts, and some period clothes in which to look all religious.
Using an example I think we can all agree on - the papacy: a Roman Catholic sees patristic proof for the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome, I/we look at the same examples in a very different light and add to them many more examples that undercut the claim. It is a matter of weighing the evidence and honest people can disagree while remaining honest.
A major part of how one looks at such proof is based on the lens of faith, the rule one brings to the material to begin with. A great deal of this is tied up in one's experience, prayer life, who is trusted, temperament, aesthetic, culture, language and learning.
At the same time, book learning can really only confirm or deny an impulse that is coming from elsewhere in or outside of a person. If one wants to remain a Lutheran or return to it, one will find a reason to do so. The want can be based on family and culture, on one's job and livelihood, or on deeper resonances with what the theology or practice of a church asks, answers and says about the human condition and God. The same is true of someone that wants to leave a confession, or why they want to join another particular confession. For instance, I have no idea why an ex-girlfriend of mine is converting to Judaism, and not because of marriage. It just seems stupid to me. But, these things are subjective in practice because our knowledge, experience and vision is faulty. Until faith is experience - not in things seen, but still experienced - than one is at the mercy of opinion, best guess, trustworthy sources, affinities and the like.
However, none of this begins unless there is a disconnect in one's own confession or lack thereof (Anne Rice is a good example of the latter; her spiritual autobiography is a good read). That disconnect allows one to look elsewhere for answers to that deep, inner desire for ________. Books then help, but can't finish the job.
We're all Lutherans to a Lutheran in a way similar to how Hindus and Buddhists view all mankind as fitting into what they believe is the way of the world. Orthodox would claim that any and all non-Orthodox who are saved are saved because they are in some way 'Orthodox' beyond our regular experience of the term. I take no offense, though I know many that would (people staying away from genealogy sites because Mormons use them to do baptism of the dead by proxy is an example of such - even when you and I know they aren't really doing anything, though they believe they are.)
Actually, something like that might be a great deal of fun. I certainly enjoy reading Orthodox and Roman theological works, as well as Lutheran. Of course, I don't concede that St. Maximus is exclusively YOURS. :) But I wonder if folks would be interested in working through books together via discussion on a blog. Would it be too tedious? I was thinking of that excellent book, Orthodox Readings of St. Augustine. Wouldn't a conversation on some of the essays in that be worthwhile?
I have noticed, though, that while a Lutheran may read Orthodox writings, it appears as though once one becomes Orthodox they don't read any Lutheran writings. A pity - it was not always so. I think of St. John of Kronstadt's praise of Arndt.
I think a 'perspectives' book like that on Augustine would work as it is in some ways more historical and fact based, rather than interpretive or 'theological'.
St. Tikhon of Zadonsk was another who had some Lutheran books in his library. Of course, in those days Lutheran Germany was a cultural force, too, which Germany and Lutheranism are not so much anymore. Printed books were also rare, so whatever one could find that was not 'objectionable' was used. It is similar to how Lutherans and Orthodox will be aware of the latest work by an Anglican like NT Wright or a Catholic like B16/Ratzinger. Other examples abound. You're reaching back to 19th Century non-LCMS, American Lutheranism for Krauth, which says something.
We've also discussed how many Lutheran prayers (especially those based on ancient templates) are perfectly acceptable to an Orthodox Christian - except for all that is purposefully left out; what's there is perfectly fine, however. When one didn't have access to things with the 'more' left in, it would make sense to do with the next best thing. :)
We've also discussed how many Lutheran prayers (especially those based on ancient templates) are perfectly acceptable to an Orthodox Christian - except for all that is purposefully left out;
Gott hilf mir! That's JUST the conclusion I came to when I was Roman Catholic -- how many Catholic prayers were perfectly acceptable to Lutherans except for what was left in !!
Pastor Weedon, if we surpass the 110 mark on David's blog -- he ain't gonna be happy (:
Now Christopher, how silly would it sound to you to say that you reach back to cite a Florovsky or some such? Of course I quote Krauth. He was a good friend of Walther and held in highest esteem by him. His writing is newly re-released by our own publishing house with a stunning into by Dr. Rast. He's a gem that shouldn't have been allowed to disappear and I'm thankful he hasn't.
What I was getting at is that there haven't been as many internationally known Lutheran writers/theologians of late for those in other confessions to keep abreast of. The most famous would be Sasse, Elert, Pelikan and Neuhaus. Not sure if there are many others that transcend confessional boundaries - apart from their value and respect within Lutheranism. Are there? I'm not sure if Krauth or Walther would even fit that category, actually, whereas Florovsky, Schmemann, etc. did transcend their own confession in similar fashion as Arndt, Wright, Ratzinger, etc.
Among those still writing, I would think John Kleinig from Australia should be included and also John Stephenson from Canada. Among those who are now deceased, you left out Piepkorn, whose writings are still being published, and whose reputation is well known.
One thing that I sorely missed as a Lutheran (and that the average, non-convert Orthodox lacks, too) is a sense of the history of the church. Perhaps a good general history book would be a good kind of thing to study in tandem. Old Testament, New Testament, ante-Nicene, Nicene, post-Nicene, etc. I know the Louth series from SVS Press introduced me (recently) to gaps in my knowledge of the Western Middle Ages (Charlemagne, Cluny).
I don't think American education is stressing history, especially world history, as much as it used to.
My East Prussian born (Lutheran) mother and Bavarian (Catholic) father both received a good grounding in history, from both a secular and religious perspective since religion classes were taught in European schools. Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus or Karl der Grosse -- whom so many Americans erroneously believe was French -- he was not) was well known to both of them.
This is wonderful to hear you are back. This is a blessing to hear. God be with you and grow you in the faith.
the Lutheran part never really left even while I was at Rome.
I knew that in fact I have been saying the same to David S but he at this time is still not admitting that and in my words - Lutherenizing the RCC.
Just like PE, as you know I was also a child of Mother Church (and so was Luther) but the RCC that is discussed in David S. blog is not the same one we knew and grew up in. RCC is like that, it accomodates everything and everyone. The Book of Acts and the Epistles are evidences that say that the Church may go off the rails but that is why Scripture is there and that is why St Paul wrote to the churches.Even now God is always calling us back to the Gospel. In fact to say that the Church never errs is to deny 1 John 1:8.
Dixie,
I also think that in some small way some personality factor which I have not pin pointed yet plays a part too.
Take the case of the person I know who was from a non-denom church who for a while went to being Lutheran. The person was invited to write his testimony of what he found in Lutheranism it got published but now he is with you, an EO. BUt when I read his responses to some discussions to traditional things while Lutheran, he was already prone to valuing and appreciating what he did not have - tradition, so it was not a wonder to me that he became EO, Luteranism wasn't traditional enough aside from the assesment it has not the full Truth.
In my case perhaps my personality of being maverick and renegade contributed to my being Protestant (yeah as a Lutheran in Aus, we are not allergic to that word), like being predestined to be a Prot (LOL). I have a form of scepticism that makes me un-ordainable by the LCMS or WELS (LOL).
Pr Will,
I will be so happy to join the reading group but I have not finished my thesis and so I still do not have a life. Besides, you guys are too advanced for me.
PE/Dr. Maher, Nice to see you mi hermano mio.
After giving my paper in Portugal and our paper winning the best paper award, it was a great high! Then I got home and got retrenched! What a low blow! Been out of work now for 5 weeks except for a very small retainer fee, just barely paying the bills.
Now I am a programmer without a job, but I will program for a runza.
Thanks for your good wishes and may the Good Lord lead you to a new and profitable venture.
RCC is like that, it accomodates everything and everyone.
Unfortunately that is true and was a big part of my leaving. It is why the paradigm of "empire" still fits. Just as ancient Rome allowed its peoples to believe whatever they wanted as long as one burned a pinch of incense to the god emperor, so it is with Rome as long as one as in "unity" with the pope.
I still have many Catholic family members and pray for them daily.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Rome teaches, pre or postconciliar. Holy Scripture brought me back to my Lutheran roots, as surely as it did after I fell away from church attendance in my late teens and early twenties.
Because the Word of God really IS living, active and always accomplishes what it says!
I also think that in some small way some personality factor which I have not pin pointed yet plays a part too.
Well, LP, this is where we would part ways. I can't believe God would have one place for ENFPs and another for ISTJs and have both places teach different things! Plus...I think we have some ISTJ converts in our parish and some ENFPs! ;)
I read Krauth's Conservative Reformation before swimming the Bosphorus. Pretty good overall, but it didn't stop me. I thought his Hegelian dialectical understanding of church history to be terribly outdated and pretty weak. In this respect he's kind of like Newman.
I'll give him this though (and Newman too): stunningly elegant prose. It's here that Walther can't touch him.
In the words of Walther, Krauth was, without a doubt, the most eminent man in the English Lutheran Church of this country, a man of rare learning, at home no less in the old than in modern theology, and, what is of greatest import, whole-heartedly devoted to the pure doctrine of our Church, as he had learned to understand it, a noble man and without guile.
Thanks be to God for this most illustrious advocate of Confessional Lutheranism.
Poor John Henry Newman, on the other hand, never was totally at peace with his decision to swim the Tiber.
Having come out myself I now understand why. And see Constantinople as the other side of the coin.
51 comments:
I think that is excellent advice. Of course, one should also read other assessments of the same patristic and historical material. At the end of the day, though, if one can read one's way into or out of a faith without prayer, worship and struggle, then one's sight is likely not clear - reading only does so much. We can't learn to swim by reading a manual after all... :)
After a good faith effort at research and study, we simply have to make the best, most prayerful choice we can based on both the head and heart/nous information we have been able to gather while praying 'Lord, have mercy'.
And on that we don't disagree one bit, Christopher. And let us charitably commend those who make choices we would not make to the mercy of our gracious heavenly Father. I always come back to the rather haunting words of Sasse: "In this sinful world, where lies are fathered on every hand, what is lie and what is truth cannot be known if there is no line between them... And when here on earth the tragic case occurs, which happens again and again where the question of truth is earnestly engaged, that one confession of faith is set against another, conscience against conscience, then we must leave the decision to Him who in the Last Judgment will finally separate truth from error. We do not know God's judgments and we can and may not anticipate them. Also when we speak the damnamus against a false teaching, God's forgiving grace may bring the erring sinner into the church triumphant, where there is no more untruth. On the other hand, this door will be shut to many a one who has done battle for the truth in perfect orthodoxy, but has forgotten that he too was only a poor sinner who lives only by forgiving grace." We Confess: the Church, p. 57, 58
And if I believed in canonization C.P. Krauth would be first on my list!
I have started reading "The Conservative Reformation" again and I thank and praise God for his faithful servant. Krauth is awesome!
Christine
I agree, Christine. There is about his writings not merely an intellectual rigor (Christopher, don't take this the wrong way, but it reminds me of reading St. Maximos!), but there is also a humility and kindness, a holiness, that I don't think he's even aware that he is showing.
Amen. We have hope in Him Whom we know to be "compassionate and merciful, long-suffering and of great mercy."
I think he is far too clear a writer to be likened to St. Maximus. :)
I read Krauth and liked him tremendously. The problem I had was not with what he said so much as my own conclusion that while Krauth won the theological battle of his time, he nevertheless lost the theological war. Of course, it is important to note that I was standing in a different place than are most of you here.
Brian
I'm not seriously contemplating a swim, but if I were I don't think that Krauth or any other particular author would be the sure inoculation against it.
No matter how marvelous Krauth is (and I have not read him, so I can't say), at best he will deliver only "Book Lutheranism." And Book Lutheranism, like Book Orthodoxy or Book Catholicism, can only be a shadow of the real thing. The person who is seriously contemplating a swim has found something about his current confession that undermines its legitimacy in a fundamental way. If that legitimacy is to be restored, it will have to happen in the actuality of the life of the Church; a book, no matter how good, cannot accomplish that.
I suppose I shall have to read Krauth one day; but if the reading of a book could decide one's ecclesial affiliation, Fr John Behr would have made me Orthodox again in a heartbeat.
Chris,
God gave us His Word also in a Book and thus the theological endeavor has always called forth books reflecting on the Book that bears witness to the Word Enfleshed. Our faith and books are not foes of each other!
What Krauth describes is not merely a book theology; but a theology by which people may bear the crosses of their lives, suffer in patience and love, and then joyfully die in faith in the Savior's forgiveness, mercy and love.
Pax!
I read this in Dr. Feuerhahn's "Church and Confession of the 19th Century" class.
Good stuff, maynard.
Fr Weedon,
God gave us His Word also in a Book ...
He gave us His Word in the womb of the Holy Virgin. The Bible is an icon of that Word; it is not itself that Word.
When the Church uses the Scriptures in the liturgical assembly to proclaim Christ, then the Bible becomes a means by which we come into communion with Him. It is in that ecclesial and liturgical use that the Scriptures came to be Scriptures, and apart from that use it is doubtful whether they can be called "Scripture" at all.
This may seem a tangent from what you are saying about Krauth, but it really is not. The person who has his toe in the Tiber or the Bosporus is often one who sees something broken in the ecclesial and liturgical life of his or her Church body. And if that is broken, then the Scriptures are not being rightly used and the Gospel is not being rightly communicated. A book which describes a theology that is not being lived in the liturgy of one's Church body is simply not going to help.
Dear Christopher,
I wouldn't disagree if you mean "liturgically" to include all prayerful reading of the Sacred Scriptures (which also call themselves the Word of God - they do not merely contain it, in the sense of God speaking, they ARE God speaking). But to suggest that the Sacred Scripture can only be heard aright within the context of the Divine Service or the Daily Office is something I think no father of the Church would ever say - and most certainly not St. John Chrysostom.
Even when we read the Bible privately, our reading and understanding of it is grounded in the Church's use of Scripture in the liturgical assembly. It should form the context of Scripture even when we are using the Scriptures outside of it.
That I do not dispute; but the SCRIPTURE is what shapes the liturgical experience rather than the liturgical experience being what shapes the Scripture. Still, I readily grant that we experience a joyous unfolding of Scripture through liturgical experience. Anyone who has sung: "Arise, O Lord, You and the ark of Your covenant" on the day of Mary's dormition will never think of the passage in quite the same way again...
...the SCRIPTURE is what shapes the liturgical experience rather than the liturgical experience being what shapes the Scripture.
And there, my good friend, is the rub; and on two counts. First, there is the suggestion of abstracting Scripture as a thing in itself apart from its necessary context (as if reading it, prayerfully or devotionally, is a means of grace). And second, there is the (no doubt unintended) bifurcation of liturgy and Scripture, as if perhaps the Spirit is more alive in one and less alive (or at least sublimated) in the other. God forbid!
...the SCRIPTURE is what shapes the liturgical experience rather than the liturgical experience being what shapes the Scripture.
I think that as a simple historical matter this is not true. In both the Old Covenant and the New, the saving acts of God come first, then the community's liturgical anamnesis and participation in those events, and only then the Scriptural record. Certainly in the case of the New Covenant, the "shape of the liturgy" and therefore the liturgical experience of the Church long pre-date the writing, dissemination, and canonization of the New Testament. As Dix wrote, the Apostolic paradosis of practice, like the Apostolic paradosis of doctrine, is something which actually ante-dates the writing of the New Testament documents themselves by some two or three decades. It is presupposed by those documents and referred to more than once as authoritative in them.
Besides, what Fr John said.
Let me put it another way, Chris, the Words and promises of God, which are also contained in the Scripture, shape and mold the Church's liturgical experience. I think *The Living God* put it well when its authors wrote:
"The pettiness and sins of the Christian people
pass away in the course of history, but the Word of God remains and
never ceases to be heard in the sermons and the church services. The
Word of God is the permanent element in the life of the Church,
defining its form and directing its development, despite the
mediocrity of its members. God Himself expresses this idea through
the mouth of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 55:10-11 is cited)."
Fr. John,
It is certainly a point of difference between Orthodoxy and Lutheran theology.
I'd been thinking on my way in this morning that whether one sees the Bible as part of the lex orandi or the lex credendi is important - and an underlying difference that Chris, Pr. Weedon and Fr. John have already stumbled onto discussing. I guess it is also important which of the two one gives preeminence to and which one holds to 'first'.
And Book Lutheranism, like Book Orthodoxy or Book Catholicism, can only be a shadow of the real thing.
I don't think any Lutheran would base the entire sum of his ecclesiastical/spiritual life on one book anymore than a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would. But there are books and there are books. Krauth's keen insights and defense of the Confessions and the Real Presence make him stand out among many.
He helped me to see once again that my swim over the Tiber to Rome was not where I should be and for that I am truly grateful.
Christine
Pr. Will,
I agree with CJ when he says that no book will do it. It is quite correct that when one swims he/she has found something fundamentally flawed in his existing denomination. This flaw is something that he experienced and through this experience, he takes and uses as an interpreter i.e. convinces him of the flaw.
Therefore even if Krauth gives a good apology it will not convince if what the subject experiences is not consonant with what Krauth defends.
I have seen this in the internet. I have seen folk from non-denom evangelicalism parking for a while at Wittenberg then taking their tent and pitching it either in Rome or Constantinople.
LP
PS. The banner looks good.
He helped me to see once again that my swim over the Tiber to Rome was not where I should be and for that I am truly grateful.
Hang on a minute, is this the Christine I know who was born Lutheran and went to Rome?
Is she an Augsburgian again?
LPC
LP, that is an exceptional assessment. And in my estimate accurately sums up why someone can't just read their way into Lutheranism, Orthodoxy or whatever. Sure, it may start with reading but the whole has to be congruent for a person to see it as authentic and that whole also includes experience, not just knowledge obtained from reading.
Yes...that's the Christine of the former Christine / PE wars on Schutz's blog. PE won her over so the wars are not nearly as exciting any more! ;)
finfigm: A Finnish Fig dessert
Lito and Dixie,
Indeed, I do not at all disagree that no one can learn what Lutheranism is from a book; one learns it most of all under the press of the cross, which happens in real life. But I do note how near I personally was to abandoning Lutheranism because of what I have come to believe were arguments against our faith that had answers which I had never heard - and so which I believed HAD no answer. Krauth supplies those answers. Assuming that others might be in a similar boat, I recommend Krauth above all as the place to discover them. Does that make any sense?
Makes sense to me. You know what kept you Lutheran and you share that.
I was looking at it in a broader way because, as you know, many people start their way to Orthodoxy by reading and that is not enough. It hit me a bit personally...I blogged about it.
But I do note how near I personally was to abandoning Lutheranism because of what I have come to believe were arguments against our faith that had answers which I had never heard - and so which I believed HAD no answer. Krauth supplies those answers.
Exactly spot on, Pastor Weedon. My experience also in returning to my Lutheran roots after my Roman sojourn.
Christine
Yep Lito! It's me and I am indeed an Augsburgian again!
I will shortly be received into membership at an LCMS congregation.
Thanks be to God!
Christine
My experience has been that the 'disconnect' or perceived 'flaw' is really only gives one the opportunity to look at something else, and look at it with new eyes. When everything is going along hunkey-dorey, ain't nothin' broke, so ain't nothin' need fixin'. When something is broken or when one is cut to the quick, then one looks around. Whether they go somewhere, where they go, if they default to Nothing, or whether they stay put are separate series of questions and issues. The cat can't get out if you don't leave the door open. (This is true of every community or movement, religious or otherwise).
Christopher,
I suppose that's true. But what I wanted to stress with Krauth is that Orthodox and Roman apologists DO make theological and historical attacks upon Lutheranism - and those attacks can be devastating and convincing if one has not encountered a Lutheran response. Krauth seems to have anticipated much of this current struggle and he offers such a response. Note please: not a response for justifying a straying Synod, but a response for why he is and remained a Lutheran Christian despite the Synodical mess he had to deal with - and his was worse than ours!
Dixie,
Nah, PE didn't "win me over." He just helped me to remember what was there long ago. I was Lutheran long before I was Roman Catholic, and truth be told, the Lutheran part never really left even while I was at Rome.
Christine
..one learns it most of all under the press of the cross, which happens in real life...
My good friend, my guess is either you've overstated your point or I've misunderstood it (or its context). What seems to be said is that the hardness of life teaches Lutheranism; or that the hardness of life is what leads one to become a Lutheran. I'm sure that's not correct since there are many (i.e., Buddha) who did not learn that lesson after observing the afflictions or press of life.
I would like to think that you intended to say that the hardness or press of life confirms the Lutheranism that one has learned. If that is the case, then where does the learning first occur?
Fr. John,
What I was referring to was that true worship which the Tractatus describes as the struggle of faith wrestling with despair - as it presses and presses hard, one becomes a person who learns to rely upon the divine promises and on them alone. And such a person is a Lutheran - no matter what his ecclesial jurisdiction. :)
Who summoned me?
I didn't win anybody over to bupkis.
And if you think the wars have calmed down on the Aussie blog, drop over -- there's a blogoshperic shoot-out across several threads going on now.
However, I'm not there to win anybody over either. I'm there because I used to be where they think they are, and they aren't even remotely close to being there.
Except for the real estate and bank accounts, and some period clothes in which to look all religious.
Using an example I think we can all agree on - the papacy: a Roman Catholic sees patristic proof for the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome, I/we look at the same examples in a very different light and add to them many more examples that undercut the claim. It is a matter of weighing the evidence and honest people can disagree while remaining honest.
A major part of how one looks at such proof is based on the lens of faith, the rule one brings to the material to begin with. A great deal of this is tied up in one's experience, prayer life, who is trusted, temperament, aesthetic, culture, language and learning.
At the same time, book learning can really only confirm or deny an impulse that is coming from elsewhere in or outside of a person. If one wants to remain a Lutheran or return to it, one will find a reason to do so. The want can be based on family and culture, on one's job and livelihood, or on deeper resonances with what the theology or practice of a church asks, answers and says about the human condition and God. The same is true of someone that wants to leave a confession, or why they want to join another particular confession. For instance, I have no idea why an ex-girlfriend of mine is converting to Judaism, and not because of marriage. It just seems stupid to me. But, these things are subjective in practice because our knowledge, experience and vision is faulty. Until faith is experience - not in things seen, but still experienced - than one is at the mercy of opinion, best guess, trustworthy sources, affinities and the like.
However, none of this begins unless there is a disconnect in one's own confession or lack thereof (Anne Rice is a good example of the latter; her spiritual autobiography is a good read). That disconnect allows one to look elsewhere for answers to that deep, inner desire for ________. Books then help, but can't finish the job.
We're all Lutherans to a Lutheran in a way similar to how Hindus and Buddhists view all mankind as fitting into what they believe is the way of the world. Orthodox would claim that any and all non-Orthodox who are saved are saved because they are in some way 'Orthodox' beyond our regular experience of the term. I take no offense, though I know many that would (people staying away from genealogy sites because Mormons use them to do baptism of the dead by proxy is an example of such - even when you and I know they aren't really doing anything, though they believe they are.)
What amazes me is that such a long conversation could come out of a recommendation for reading!
We should start a book club.
Bill: Krauth, Krauth, Krauth, TLP, BofC.
Chris: Maximus Confessor, Behr.
I don't think that would go anywhere. :)
Actually, something like that might be a great deal of fun. I certainly enjoy reading Orthodox and Roman theological works, as well as Lutheran. Of course, I don't concede that St. Maximus is exclusively YOURS. :) But I wonder if folks would be interested in working through books together via discussion on a blog. Would it be too tedious? I was thinking of that excellent book, Orthodox Readings of St. Augustine. Wouldn't a conversation on some of the essays in that be worthwhile?
I have noticed, though, that while a Lutheran may read Orthodox writings, it appears as though once one becomes Orthodox they don't read any Lutheran writings. A pity - it was not always so. I think of St. John of Kronstadt's praise of Arndt.
I think a 'perspectives' book like that on Augustine would work as it is in some ways more historical and fact based, rather than interpretive or 'theological'.
St. Tikhon of Zadonsk was another who had some Lutheran books in his library. Of course, in those days Lutheran Germany was a cultural force, too, which Germany and Lutheranism are not so much anymore. Printed books were also rare, so whatever one could find that was not 'objectionable' was used. It is similar to how Lutherans and Orthodox will be aware of the latest work by an Anglican like NT Wright or a Catholic like B16/Ratzinger. Other examples abound. You're reaching back to 19th Century non-LCMS, American Lutheranism for Krauth, which says something.
We've also discussed how many Lutheran prayers (especially those based on ancient templates) are perfectly acceptable to an Orthodox Christian - except for all that is purposefully left out; what's there is perfectly fine, however. When one didn't have access to things with the 'more' left in, it would make sense to do with the next best thing. :)
We've also discussed how many Lutheran prayers (especially those based on ancient templates) are perfectly acceptable to an Orthodox Christian - except for all that is purposefully left out;
Gott hilf mir! That's JUST the conclusion I came to when I was Roman Catholic -- how many Catholic prayers were perfectly acceptable to Lutherans except for what was left in !!
Pastor Weedon, if we surpass the 110 mark on David's blog -- he ain't gonna be happy (:
Christine
Now Christopher, how silly would it sound to you to say that you reach back to cite a Florovsky or some such? Of course I quote Krauth. He was a good friend of Walther and held in highest esteem by him. His writing is newly re-released by our own publishing house with a stunning into by Dr. Rast. He's a gem that shouldn't have been allowed to disappear and I'm thankful he hasn't.
What I was getting at is that there haven't been as many internationally known Lutheran writers/theologians of late for those in other confessions to keep abreast of. The most famous would be Sasse, Elert, Pelikan and Neuhaus. Not sure if there are many others that transcend confessional boundaries - apart from their value and respect within Lutheranism. Are there? I'm not sure if Krauth or Walther would even fit that category, actually, whereas Florovsky, Schmemann, etc. did transcend their own confession in similar fashion as Arndt, Wright, Ratzinger, etc.
Among those still writing, I would think John Kleinig from Australia should be included and also John Stephenson from Canada. Among those who are now deceased, you left out Piepkorn, whose writings are still being published, and whose reputation is well known.
Good to know. I hadn't heard their names before - apart from Piepkorn, of course.
I believe that when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the current pope sent to Stephenson a little note about his work on the Lord's Supper.
One thing that I sorely missed as a Lutheran (and that the average, non-convert Orthodox lacks, too) is a sense of the history of the church. Perhaps a good general history book would be a good kind of thing to study in tandem. Old Testament, New Testament, ante-Nicene, Nicene, post-Nicene, etc. I know the Louth series from SVS Press introduced me (recently) to gaps in my knowledge of the Western Middle Ages (Charlemagne, Cluny).
I don't think American education is stressing history, especially world history, as much as it used to.
My East Prussian born (Lutheran) mother and Bavarian (Catholic) father both received a good grounding in history, from both a secular and religious perspective since religion classes were taught in European schools. Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus or Karl der Grosse -- whom so many Americans erroneously believe was French -- he was not) was well known to both of them.
Christine
CHristine,
This is wonderful to hear you are back. This is a blessing to hear.
God be with you and grow you in the faith.
the Lutheran part never really left even while I was at Rome.
I knew that in fact I have been saying the same to David S but he at this time is still not admitting that and in my words - Lutherenizing the RCC.
Just like PE, as you know I was also a child of Mother Church (and so was Luther) but the RCC that is discussed in David S. blog is not the same one we knew and grew up in. RCC is like that, it accomodates everything and everyone. The Book of Acts and the Epistles are evidences that say that the Church may go off the rails but that is why Scripture is there and that is why St Paul wrote to the churches.Even now God is always calling us back to the Gospel. In fact to say that the Church never errs is to deny 1 John 1:8.
Dixie,
I also think that in some small way some personality factor which I have not pin pointed yet plays a part too.
Take the case of the person I know who was from a non-denom church who for a while went to being Lutheran. The person was invited to write his testimony of what he found in Lutheranism it got published but now he is with you, an EO. BUt when I read his responses to some discussions to traditional things while Lutheran, he was already prone to valuing and appreciating what he did not have - tradition, so it was not a wonder to me that he became EO, Luteranism wasn't traditional enough aside from the assesment it has not the full Truth.
In my case perhaps my personality of being maverick and renegade contributed to my being Protestant (yeah as a Lutheran in Aus, we are not allergic to that word), like being predestined to be a Prot (LOL). I have a form of scepticism that makes me un-ordainable by the LCMS or WELS (LOL).
Pr Will,
I will be so happy to join the reading group but I have not finished my thesis and so I still do not have a life. Besides, you guys are too advanced for me.
PE/Dr. Maher,
Nice to see you mi hermano mio.
After giving my paper in Portugal and our paper winning the best paper award, it was a great high! Then I got home and got retrenched! What a low blow! Been out of work now for 5 weeks except for a very small retainer fee, just barely paying the bills.
Now I am a programmer without a job, but I will program for a runza.
Lito
Hi Lito!
Thanks for your good wishes and may the Good Lord lead you to a new and profitable venture.
RCC is like that, it accomodates everything and everyone.
Unfortunately that is true and was a big part of my leaving. It is why the paradigm of "empire" still fits. Just as ancient Rome allowed its peoples to believe whatever they wanted as long as one burned a pinch of incense to the god emperor, so it is with Rome as long as one as in "unity" with the pope.
I still have many Catholic family members and pray for them daily.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Rome teaches, pre or postconciliar.
Holy Scripture brought me back to my Lutheran roots, as surely as it did after I fell away from church attendance in my late teens and early twenties.
Because the Word of God really IS living, active and always accomplishes what it says!
God be with you, Lito!
Christine
Man, Lito, ain't that the way it always is -- hero to zero in seconds!
Pero no te preocupes, hermano!
Hey, maybe Runza offers franchise opportunities in Oz.
I also think that in some small way some personality factor which I have not pin pointed yet plays a part too.
Well, LP, this is where we would part ways. I can't believe God would have one place for ENFPs and another for ISTJs and have both places teach different things! Plus...I think we have some ISTJ converts in our parish and some ENFPs! ;)
I read Krauth's Conservative Reformation before swimming the Bosphorus. Pretty good overall, but it didn't stop me. I thought his Hegelian dialectical understanding of church history to be terribly outdated and pretty weak. In this respect he's kind of like Newman.
I'll give him this though (and Newman too): stunningly elegant prose. It's here that Walther can't touch him.
Peace,
Weedon Fan #74
David Jay Webber writes:
In the words of Walther, Krauth was, without a doubt,
the most eminent man in the English Lutheran Church of this country, a man of rare learning, at home no less in the old than in modern theology, and, what is of greatest import, whole-heartedly devoted to the pure doctrine of our Church, as he had learned to understand it, a noble man and without guile.
Thanks be to God for this most illustrious advocate of Confessional Lutheranism.
Poor John Henry Newman, on the other hand, never was totally at peace with his decision to swim the Tiber.
Having come out myself I now understand why. And see Constantinople as the other side of the coin.
Christine
Post a Comment