Outer Rim Territories

Musings, ramblings, and nonsense from the fringe of space and time
« Back to blog
 

A New Confession II

I can't speak to the validity of this statement, concerning the source, Reclaim News has been in error or misguided before. E'en so, the statement flatly denies the ability for proper confession in the face of error. Again, what confession requires majority vote by the synod as its norm over Scripture as its norm? For the sake of good order, we meet and discuss not for the sake of normative action to doctrinal matters.

[At the] Ohio District Convention: In discussion in response to a query at the Ohio District Convention about possibly revisiting the '04 Synod Convention (and CTCR) position on the role of women in the church, [a synodical official] made this pronouncement: "You are free to disagree, everyone is free to disagree, but let me say this: You, pastors, are NOT free to publicly teach or preach that Synod is wrong on ANY given issue. I'll say it again, you are NOT free to teach in a bible class or preach from the pulpit that Synod is wrong on any issue."
FYI: I have removed any personal references in the event it is incorrect. I am glad to have taped all my Bible classes in the event someone wants to call me out as going against Synod doctrine.

Posted June 27, 2006 by Christopher Gillespie 
Jun 27, 2006
dm42 said...
Hmmm... kind of reminiscent of something someone else said a number of years ago. Just before "Lutheran" became a bad word. (See Section III)

Then again, it's a quotation without context and thus most of the important parts of the statement are undefined according to the original intent. So now, we are free to claim it means anything we want it to.

It's easy to assume we know what "ANY issue" means, but the scope of language is limited by it's context. (See: Nida, Signs, Sense, Translation - discussion of internuclear semantic relations - pp. 40-89). Given that it was spoken comments, it is reasonable to assume that the words, "like this" were elided. To read it too globally would lead to absurdity.

Most "confessionals" will read it in the way I did and claim that it "proves" that Synod wishes to return to a papal-type hierarchy. Others will point out that if there's disagreement, there's no "Synod' in the true sense of the word. And -- once again -- both sides will talk past each other instead of TO and WITH each other (the sad and most common state of affairs in our Synod today).

Let's break it down a little:

When you "disagree" you disagree with something specific. In this case, exactly what was the speaker talking about? We have, for instance, passed several "Doctrinal Resolutions" which claim, for instance, Scripture is inspired. I sincerely hope that nobody advocates that these are "wrong." We have also adopted "guidance documents" regarding participation in civic events as well as women in the Church.

It's important to know what category we're talking about because, at least as far as I understand the Constitution and Bylaws, the scope of each of these is different. "Doctrinal Statements" applying globally to all "members" and "guidance" language applying to those who hold positions in the synodical corporations.

But, perhaps there is no difference and I'm misunderstanding -- in which case -- hopefully someone here can clarify.

Either way, though, let's avoid putting words in this [synodical official]'s mouth by assuming we know what he meant when the quotation doesn't tell us. Given the source, I think we should treat it as if Daystar reported on what was said by [insert your most beloved "confessional" personality here].

Jun 27, 2006
Christopher Gillespie said...
Nice sarcasm. I hear it requires extra intelligence to detect and understand such things. :)

I neglected the whole content: "By definition, an ale is not beer but is an ale. You are free to disagree..."

Thanks for your positive reflection on this nice piece of reporting. I can only rest assured that I propagated what might well be a misquote. The masses love to be willfully deceived and will accept whatever I say. God bless the Internet!

Jun 29, 2006
Sean said...
We could get all or most of our pastors together, lock them in a room, and have them debate theology and develop a creed or confession that adequately defines biblical doctrine and combats heresies. we could call it a council :)
Jun 29, 2006
Christopher Gillespie said...
My point exactly in my previous post.

http://dizzysound.net/blog/2006/06/26/a-new-confession/

This whole bologna about ratification by districts and synods, who have little to know time or interest in discussion or disputing the resolutions put before it... just gets me too fired up!

This is not a council. This is a political railroading session. Yes, some resolutions say something and perhaps are worth passing. Yet, there is no real forum and no real input by the church at large. I don't think this is what Walther or even Jesus had in mind for church polity.

Yuck.