Charles has left a new comment on your post "How Can I Question Paul Calvin Kelm":
Thanks for your insight.
I understand your point, and I'm sorry if I came across as disingenuous. I'm just trying to discern between two groups of Christians and I'm trying to ask the right questions.
On one side we have the liberal WELS and LCMS churches. The other side are churches in WELS and LCMS that identify themselves as "Confessional". I generally find that "Confessional" churches more often teach real spiritual meat, and have the strength of 2000 years of Christian tradition (hymns, liturgy, creeds) backing them. Clearly those churches are better than the Whoopee Worship tent meetings.
The disconcerting thing is that I hear a different brand of legalism coming from Confessional churches. There are many of that stripe who insist that the Western Rite is the only acceptable Order(s) of service; Many who insist (subtly) that the Worship Service is legitimized by a crucifix-processional and genuflection. One Pastor I know even says that the Book of Concord is essentially the Bible, because it is so congruous with it. That disturbs me.
This legalism is just as damaging to Sound Doctrine as it is for the liberals to be 'feeling' their way into ecstasy.
But I'm very stoked that you quoted Article VII. It's something that my pastor (at my LCMS confessional church) forgets. And it's not like I want some modern worship service or anything. The traditional service is as beautiful as it is rich. I just know it's not good to swear by one thing or the other.
Perhaps the liberals would be be more attuned to the confessionals if the confessionals could eradicate their own tendency towards legalism.
What do you make of the Conservative brand of legalism that I'm referring to? Do you find other Pastors in your circle tempted by this?
Thanks for your hard work
Charles
***
GJ - I am well aware of the Pharisaical legalism available in the dark corners of the Lutheran Church. I learned that no one is more antinomian than a legalist. For example, the Sleepy Eye CLC (sic) church was aghast that I wore an alb, and the circuit pondered the scandal of Shrove Tuesday pancakes under the discerning eye of Steve Kurtzahn. However, they had no problem with adultery or incest.
I heard a former LCA pastor claim that the Book of Concord was infallible because it was a correct exposition of the inerrant Scriptures. He even tried out his new doctrinal insight on The Surrendered Fort faculty in Ft. Wayne. No one felt edified. Later he was against Creation, turned UCC, and who knows what followed that.
I attended an Augustana Synod congregation, upgraded to LCA, where no one would have considered a non-liturgical service or hiding the Lutheran name. The sermons were Biblical. Many people today would love to have a congregation nearby where Lutheran doctrine and worship are not under regular assault by synod-sponsored, foundation-funded experiments.
There is a historic liturgy with many variations, such as using a chorale service or substituting hymns for parts of the liturgy. The real dividing line is between a genuine worship service (original sermon, real hymns, a Creed, liturgy) and a Sneaker Service (pop music, plagiarized sermonettes, no creed, no liturgy).
I am suspicious of Lutheran pastors sinuflecting toward Rome or Constantinople. How strange that Missouri and ELCA pastors are debating the same issue at once, whether to pope or semi-pope. Some Lutheran pastors cast their longing eyes across the way, claiming to be Lutheran while coveting Bathsheba, who bathes so delightfully in full view: incense, really cool robes, chanting, and no women's ordination...ever. The trouble is, they have to murder Bathsheba's husband (the Means of Grace) to have her.
I appreciated the worship services at Concordia, Ft. Wayne and St. Louis, when I was there, but I wondered about how far they wanted to go. Certain faculty members have been teaching Patristic Fundamentalism, that Lutherans must do whatever the Syrians or Antiochians were doing in 300 AD. Many Lutherans have sensed that this papistic legalism is deadly and wrong.
In contrast, my worship professor, Ulrich Leupold, taught this way. "Do not say the worship must be chanted or cannot be chanted. If it hurts the pastor's throat or the congregation's ears, it should not be chanted." We had some proto-Romanists in the class, who loved robes a bit too much. They wanted the professor to back their new-found laws, but Leupold resisted.
