Liberal/ Moderate/ Conservative

[RevCowboy]

This sub-forum has been labeled the liberal Lutherans forum. I have never really thought of myself as a "Liberal Lutheran". In some ways I think I am theologically conservative, as I try to conserve a biblical and confessional theology, tradition and faith. But I suppose in terms of North American politics I would fall on the socialist side if things, but Canada's conservative politics are more liberal in ways than the "left leaning" politics of the Democratic party in the United States.

Anyways, we have been called the "Liberal Lutherans" or as some more Conservative Lutherans like to call us the E*CA and E*CIC. But in the broader spectrum of Christianity we likely fall into the more Conservative, orthodox and traditional category.

So my question to all you Liberal Lutherans out there, how do you understand yourself? Liberal, moderate, conservative, other?

 

[JoeCatch]

I think the labels are largely useless. My personal theology is informed most by theologians of the early 20th century neo-orthodox tradition, so the label of 'liberal' doesn't really apply to me. The neo-orthodox theologians, after all, explicitly rejected the liberalism of the theologians whose ideas were dominant in their day (Schweitzer, Ritschl, etc.), but were still miles apart from conservative evangelicals on many points. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of conservative evangelicals and confessional Lutherans, neo-orthodox theology is labeled "liberal" because it does not embrace scriptural inerrancy, grounding the authority of scripture instead in its unique witness to the incarnate, crucified and resurrected Christ.

Now, how does a theological tradition in which the incarnate, crucified and resurrected Christ is absolutely central get castigated as "liberal?" Seriously, I'm asking, because I honestly just don't see it. Is the neo-orthodox tradition best described as "moderate?" Well, I'm even less clear on what that label is supposed to point out than I am on how the label of "liberal" is supposed to apply to neo-orthodoxy. If "conservative" simply denotes a belief in scriptural inerrancy and everything else is "liberal," then who are supposed to be the moderates?

And how did that one particular teaching become the sole standard by which the dividing line is drawn? A collection of essays by the late A.C. Piepkorn has recently been published, in which he argues that scriptural inerrancy is not a confessional Lutheran view, which would of course make that standard far less justifiable for drawing the dividing line within the Lutheran tradition than it is within Christianity as a whole. I haven't gotten my hands on that essay collection yet, although I know of a source whence I might be able to borrow a copy. If I can get my hands on a copy, it should be interesting reading.

 

[RevCowboy]

I am right there with you on Neo-Orthodoxy Joe. I find myself living in a very strange world.

My seminary is on the same campus as an Anglican Seminary and a United Church of Canada (which is a truly ultra-liberal denom). The others accuse us Lutherans of being rigid, doctrinaire, conservative etc... Then I visit some online forums where there some LCMS, WELS or whatever kind of conversative Lutherans and they can barely stomach calling me a Christian. As far as my understanding of Luther goes he strove to find the middle ground. He didn't want to stay where Rome was at nor did he want to go where Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists were going. And while the middle ground is where I feel at home, we sure get beat up a lot. But we are in good company, all the big theologians of the 20th century lived in the middle ground too. Barth, Moltmann, Sittler, Bultmann, Douglas John Hall, etc...

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Other people call me a liberal. Compared to them, maybe I am. I believe that closed Communion is a contradiction in terms. I believe that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is both unnecessary and untenable.

But I'm strongly confessional in my theology and hew conservativelt to the core of Lutheran theology: 3 Solas, Law and Gospel....

I think of myself as a Lutheran, straddling the fence between Protestant and catholic. We're good at holding those paradoxes in creative tension.

The Piepkorn book sounds interesting. Does it have a title?

 

[JoeCatch]

The Piepkorn collection is called The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions; it's the second volume of a series of collections of his writings; four volumes are planned in all, and the final two should be out sometime next year. You can order it from the Piepkorn Center for Evangelical Catholicity at:

http://www.lutheransonline.com/piepkorn/piepkornsselectedwritings

The foreword by Robert Kolb and the first essay of the collection (along with the first few essays) are available at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=j05TaSLiXuQC&printsec=frontcover

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Thanks, Joe.

RevCowboy, I took a course under Joe Sittler. An amazing man!

 

[AngelusSax]

Labels are very much in the eye of the beholder. Most who know me would consider me conservative. Most who know me only on here, in TCL, would consider me liberal, but that's because I mostly post about women ordinations and open communion. Those are "liberal" ideals within Lutheranism, but they're quite common/moderate/conservative to most of Christianity.

I consider myself conservative, though. I try to conserve the original intent/ideals of things as much as possible. And hey, if that means I have to look beyond the face values of black letters on a white page, then so be it.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Thanks for the Piepkorn links. I have been looking forward to reading his material for a long time and haven't gotten around to it.

 

[Edial]

This sub-forum has been labeled the liberal Lutherans forum. I have never really thought of myself as a "Liberal Lutheran". In some ways I think I am theologically conservative, as I try to conserve a biblical and confessional theology, tradition and faith. But I suppose in terms of North American politics I would fall on the socialist side if things, but Canada's conservative politics are more liberal in ways than the "left leaning" politics of the Democratic party in the United States.

Anyways, we have been called the "Liberal Lutherans" or as some more Conservative Lutherans like to call us the E*CA and E*CIC. But in the broader spectrum of Christianity we likely fall into the more Conservative, orthodox and traditional category.

So my question to all you Liberal Lutherans out there, how do you understand yourself? Liberal, moderate, conservative, other?

Good question.
In my personal views I try to follow the Bible in it's plain understanding. I believe in the open communion among the people that have a common belief concerning the communion.
Lutherans however, have an understanding that one also needs to adhere to the full BoC to be called conservative. They also practice closed communion.
So, Scripturally I am conservative. Traditionally I am liberal.

I guess this makes me a Moderate.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[RevCowboy]

Good question.
In my personal views I try to follow the Bible in it's plain understanding. I believe in the open communion among the people that have a common belief concerning the communion.
Lutherans however, have an understanding that one also needs to adhere to the full BoC to be called conservative. They also practice closed communion.
So, Scripturally I am conservative. Traditionally I am liberal.

I guess this makes me a Moderate.

Thanks,
Ed

I think that "conservative" Lutherans today promote the notion that you need to accept the full BoC to be conservative. However, right from the beginning of the Reformation the Scandinavian Lutherans did not feel that some of the later confessional documents were necessary to adopt because they were too contextual. The scandinavians felt that the issues that they were addressing issues unique to the German reformers. Now the German reformers certainly did not tell the Scandinvians that they weren't "evangelische kirke" because they didn't accept the whole BoC. The reformers understood very well that their confessional documents were contextual responses to the abuses of their time and place, which is exactly when you read the BoC it skims over issues that the reformers didn't take with the RC's over.

Subscribing fully to the BoC because it interprets scripture, rather than in so far as it interprets scripture is a much newer type of confessionalism rather than a conservative one. It originated in the early 19th century when the Kaiser of Germany was trying to force the merger of all protestant denominations. You could almost call it the liberal interpretation...

Anyways, just to be clear, the ELCA and ELCIC do subscribe to the full BoC, but just do not hold all the documents to be equal. Rather the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism take priority over the rest of the documents.

I hope this rambling post explains some of the history of the different confessional positions.

 

[Edial]

I think that "conservative" Lutherans today promote the notion that you need to accept the full BoC to be conservative. However, right from the beginning of the Reformation the Scandinavian Lutherans did not feel that some of the later confessional documents were necessary to adopt because they were too contextual. The scandinavians felt that the issues that they were addressing issues unique to the German reformers. Now the German reformers certainly did not tell the Scandinvians that they weren't "evangelische kirke" because they didn't accept the whole BoC. The reformers understood very well that their confessional documents were contextual responses to the abuses of their time and place, which is exactly when you read the BoC it skims over issues that the reformers didn't take with the RC's over.

Subscribing fully to the BoC because it interprets scripture, rather than in so far as it interprets scripture is a much newer type of confessionalism rather than a conservative one. It originated in the early 19th century when the Kaiser of Germany was trying to force the merger of all protestant denominations. You could almost call it the liberal interpretation...

Anyways, just to be clear, the ELCA and ELCIC do subscribe to the full BoC, but just do not hold all the documents to be equal. Rather the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism take priority over the rest of the documents.

I hope this rambling post explains some of the history of the different confessional positions.

Thanks.

 

[UberLutheran]

Well, depending on who you talk to on which board, I'm either fairly conservative, uber-liberal, utterly and completely apostate, or Satan incarnate.

Let's just say I have very little theological problem reading C.S. Lewis; and while I don't subscribe to the full Book of Concord there is much with which I agree, and Luther is my all-time hero!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

"Closet Lutheran" here... or so RegularGuy has described me.

Though I'm a AG member (and I feel God led me to my particular church, if not the denomination -- there's powerful love and strong teaching there, just what I needed), my theology is far more Lutheran than it is anything else, although it would be charismatic, emergent Lutheran.

Like my friend, UberLutheran, I enjoy C.S. Lewis, agree with most of the Book of Concord, and greatly admire Martin Luther. Unlike him, I'm not politically liberal, but neolibertarian.

As Pentecostals go, my congregation is relatively liberal and I'm on the liberal side of that. But apparently I would be a moderate in ELCA. I wouldn't fit into LCMS at all, since I do believe in open communion and the ordination of women.

 

[gtmyers]

I am right there with you on Neo-Orthodoxy Joe. I find myself living in a very strange world.

My seminary is on the same campus as an Anglican Seminary and a United Church of Canada (which is a truly ultra-liberal denom). The others accuse us Lutherans of being rigid, doctrinaire, conservative etc... Then I visit some online forums where there some LCMS, WELS or whatever kind of conversative Lutherans and they can barely stomach calling me a Christian. As far as my understanding of Luther goes he strove to find the middle ground. He didn't want to stay where Rome was at nor did he want to go where Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists were going. And while the middle ground is where I feel at home, we sure get beat up a lot. But we are in good company, all the big theologians of the 20th century lived in the middle ground too. Barth, Moltmann, Sittler, Bultmann, Douglas John Hall, etc...

I am new here so hello all!

I will answer the question but first a little history. I being brought up baptist may have a different background than most of you. After i left home at 18 I did not go to church for 4 years. I met my wife and she was Lutheran. I went to her church, went to class, and soon became a Lutheran. I had a hard time with some of the theology at first. I could not understand how one could beome a christian without having to do something, such as deciding for christ or accepting christ. My idea growing up was that you had to do something. We moved and ended up going to a Presbyterian Church, of which I am still a member. I learned more history and more about what Martin Luther and then John Calvin Taught. I learned that we could not of ourselves ever come to Christ on our on. Christ has done it for us. We can't as sinners reach up to Christ, but he reaches down to us by His Word and Sacrament. We have been in a conservative Presbyterian church for 6 years. I have missed the liturgy of the Lutheran Church, so have been visiting some of the Lutheran Churches in the area.

Now am I conservative, liberal or what? I see myself as in the middle. While I am conservative in liking the traditional Lutheran liturgy, traditional divine worship, and holding to the book of concord as my basis of understanding the Christian faith i am more liberal in other areas. i think its ok for a woman to pastor. I believe that God has used evolution in creation. But in creation, He is in complete control, He is God and can do it ever how he pleases. I believe I am considered a theistic evolutionist. I think the bible is not here to prove the age of the earth but it is here to help us find him. The Holy Spirit comes to us whenever the Gospel is preached, read, or just heard. Thats just a few issues and i know there are alot more touchy issues I did not touch on, but maybe later.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I am new here so hello all!

Hi, gt! And welcome.

Now am I conservative, liberal or what?

From what you say, I'd have to conclude that you are a Lutheran. Sounds like you are pretty much smack down the middle of the ELCA.

 

[gtmyers]

Hi, gt! And welcome.





From what you say, I'd have to conclude that you are a Lutheran. Sounds like you are pretty much smack down the middle of the ELCA.

Thanks for the welcome!

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Thanks for coming around to our forum.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I am going to take a break from TCL and head over to the moderate christian forum for a while. Seems to be the George Bush either you're for us or against us mentality here. Hehehe, let's bash the ELCA again!

I wonder what non-Lutherans must think when they read some of our posts.

EDIT:

OK, I am back, I couldn't stay away. I must love being abused or something!lol

 

[gtmyers]

Just a few more statements than what I posted here earlier.

I believe that God is. I believe the apostles creed sums up my faith.

I believe the bible is true and without errors in everything but science. I do believe God created the world using evolutionary processes. I don't pretend to understand it all but I do agree with science, but where science leaves God out of creation and teaches the big bang, I believe God was behind it all.

I do not think the bible allows for homosexuality. It calls it a sin and a abomination. I think one that does this has a problem with sin just like the thief or a person that lies. Its a sin that God will forgive if an attitude of repentance is shown toward it.

I am weary of fundamentalists and their attitude that they are always right. Ive been in some of those places before and felt bad for them when they say things like they are the only ones on the true path. Sounds like Jim Jones to me.

 

[BabyLutheran]

gt,

I agree with your post, and sometimes I feel some Lutherans are very close to fundamentalism.