Pr. Weedon has quoted the following words of AC Piepkorn on his blog:
Because of the confessional position of the Lutheran Church, there is no reason why Lutherans should not still be Lutheran. Espousing the catholic and apostolic faith with Christ as center and Scripture as source, Lutherans are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Therefore, they do not have to ask whether they should be part of a church body with a name other than Lutheran. They do, of course, need to be concerned about the barriers that divide Christians from each other and must listen to other Christians for what the Holy Spirit may have to say through them. But they do not need to be concerned, as some other Christians have insisted they should be concerned, that they are somehow not the true church of Christ. -- A. C. Piepkorn, *The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions* pp. 195, 196.
The argument beneath this paragraph seems to be as follows (I welcome any correction):
Lutherans espouse the catholic and apostolic faith with Christ as center and Scripture as source.
Therefore, they are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I note at least three things about the quotation and its underlying argument:
1. What does Piepkorn mean by "Church"? How does his "Church" (whether "Lutheran" or "one, holy, catholic and apostolic") relate to actually existing bodies (e.g. the LCMS, WELS etc)? How do the members of those bodies relate to it?
2. Does the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church have "parts"? There are, to be sure, jurisdictions in the Church. But are those jurisdictions "parts"? And how is that unity demonstrated, if not in the sharing of one font and one cup?
3. What does "espouse" mean? Is espousing a matter of mere words? Or does it also require actions in accord with those words? There is a move among some Lutherans, for example, to moralize their confessional position--i.e. "We are trying/we strive to be the Church described in the Confessions." But when confessions are moralized, they show themselves to be vacuous. Imagine, for example, someone saying "I try my best to believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth" etc. It just doesn't ring true as a statement of faith.
I welcome thoughts and responses from either of my readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dear Fr. Gregory,
Though I'm not a Reader in your parish (chuckle, bad joke), I'll offer my comments.
That quote from Piepkorn is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. If I were to be sensitive about this whole thing I would point out that Piepkorn is writing from within his uniquely Lutheran and Protestant box that knows of no Church other than one that is joined by professing certain ideas/ideals. No serious Roman, Orthodox, or Coptic theologian would admit such an unplausable notion of the Church of Christ.
Piepkorn is off-base, too, in his comment about Scripture as source, not because Scripture isn't a source, but because in order to accept his words one has to accept the Lutheran and Protestant idea that the only thing that the Apostles gave for the Church to adhere to is what is in Scripture alone. That is simply a false notion, not backed up by history. The Scriptures are super-important, and the Fathers saturated themselves and their preaching and teaching with them (as should we today), but the Fathers never utilized the notion that the buck stopped there. The patristic, liturgic, concilliar, and historic evidence just doesn't back up this Lutheran/Protestant notion.
(I've already been working on something that deals with this fundamental difference between Lutherans and the Orthodox regarding the source of dogma/teaching. When I finish I'll have to post it for review/debate.)
Piepkorn doesn't know what he's talking about. The only thing one gains by relying on this sort of thinking is a deeper estrangement from catholicity and orthodoxy.
Wow, my previous comment is pretty harsh. I don't mean to be insulting or mean. I can empathize with Piepkorn's position, because it used to be my position. But I suppose that's why my reaction seems so harsh, because I couldn't allow myself to return to that way of thinking. It isn't because the sentiment - desiring to be in union with the Church of Christ in all times and places - is off-base, because it isn't. It's actually wonderful and to be encouraged. The problem for me is that the statement from Piepkorn shows that the author either hasn't acquainted himself with the belief of the Church outside of the Lutheran Reformation, or he has simply rejected it as something inappropriate.
I suppose the quote is for Lutherans by Lutherans. Orthodox Catholics and those with like ecclesiology ought only to be concerned if someone holding to that mentality tries to enter the Church. It is wonderful when someone wants to convert, but it can be very dangerous when one wants to convert without actually converting, if you know what I mean.
...either of my readers.
GoogleReader says you have 73 subscribers following you there. And that's just GoogleReader.
Sorry, Father, but you seem to have a lot of lurkers.
The problem for me is that the statement from Piepkorn shows that the author either hasn't acquainted himself with the belief of the Church outside of the Lutheran Reformation, or he has simply rejected it as something inappropriate.
Or a third alternative...the author is trying to convince himself and readers. Maybe it's my convert bias and related experiences (and Ben, your comment about it once having been your position is along that vein) but sometimes I see a bit of desperation in these kind of quotes (having once been there myself). Like if one keeps repeating "we are the Church, we are the Church" long enough it will eliminate any doubts and be so. But saying so rarely satisfies. Being Church is just that...a matter of "being."
Post a Comment