Ideological structures are characterized by loyalty to the system over fidelity to truth, and their morphology is identical whether the system is educational, political, economic, or theological.
Yes, absolutely. A hungering and thirsting laity should know this. A three volume set, available from NPH, "The Wauwatosa Theology" is a rich treasure of foundational essays.
August Pieper's essay, "Scripture Study as the Special Task of the Pastor," should be read by all and taken to heart. J.P. Koehler's "Biblical hermeneutics," and his essays on the Lutheran chorale are also must read.
Wauwatosa theology (WT) sets up a false dichotomy. Preaching should be both exegetical AND dogmatic. WT leads to what is known as the “Wauwatosa Gospel, liberated from the dogma of law and gospel. WT was influenced by late rationalism and cast a very poor understanding of church and ministry. Comparing the writings of WT to the political rhetoric of the early twentieth century you will see a common thread of influence from the world. A century after they abandoned "father's theology" the Wauwatosans have become the fathers.
A valuable conversation. I notice that the machine transcription rendered W Beitz surname as Bites. A correction seems prudent for the sake of those who would want to dig deeper into that history.
There is a grand irony in this. The Wauwatosa theologians and their heirs end up demanding conformity with dogma "because so-and-so said it" just as much as the Waltherian Lutherans, in spite of what the actual exegesis produces. The exegetical basis for theology is laudable, but easily turns theoretical as the history and prestige of an institution breeds loyalty to the institution and its formulations. This became clear to me when I began to question Objective/Subjective Justification. There is no exegetical basis for it in the Scriptures, only a dogmatic basis invented by renowned heroes and founders of the American synods. When one begins with dogma, it is easy to read the dogma back into the Scriptures, as if one were reading the Scriptures through a manmade lens. The theologian who wears these lenses then falsely believes he is approaching the Scriptures exegetically, when, in reality, his exegesis flows from the preconceived dogma, not from the Scriptures in context.
I absolutely commend you for the courage to bring this up! As I've wandered through Christendom's halls over the years I see verstockung everywhere. Western Christianity is in real danger of becoming ossified bone yards, no longer relevant in a post Christian culture. I love your analogy of "hydroponically grown" followers of Christ, divorced from the vibrant soil of scripture in which we are meant to thrive.
One of the YouTube influencers I follow, talking about diet and the quality our food in the West, says the closer to the actual natural food source, the better. Highly processed foods have been pre-digested, and thus reduced to mere calories. An intake of purified carbs circumvents the real work of digestion that our bodies were designed for. Weakness and disease is the result of highly processed foods. It's no less true for highly processed dogma.
Don't hear me say that there is no place for dogma. It's important for understanding past and present and where we're going. But it must not, cannot, replace an individual's personal response to hearing their shepherd and knowing his voice and internalizing his sometimes difficult commands. The Large Catechism simply can't do that. The Augsburg Confession is essentially processed scripture--consistent with God's Word, certainly. But it's NOT God's word. There's nuance in the process of ingesting God's voice in a believer's life that can't be downloaded like some pdf file. Covetousness is wrong because God said so, but Jesus supplies a model of interpretation that goes well beyond what is recorded in the Large Catechism: Isn't it, like adultery, more likely the desire rather than the act? Wrestling with the raw material (individually as well as collectively) is the only way to build this relationship with Jesus. "My sheep know my voice."
Excellent article! There is a reason why many of our stellar exegetes (eg Martin Franzmann) came from the WELS. Doctrine provides the boundary lines but exegesis is the name of the game or "sola Scriptura" means nothing.
Our tendency in Missouri is to place dogmatic formulations over the text of Scripture (or worse, to dogmatize the interpretation of Scripture thus violating Scripture's perspicuity). David Scaer's critique in the footnote is spot on.
In my formation as a preacher, we were taught to be textual preachers, that is, to engage the Scripture text directly in its original languages. Certainly doctrine and Scripture go together, as orthodox doctrine provides a faithful summary and exposition of the Scriptures (as we confess in our ordination vows) but Scripture alone remains the sole source of our teaching and preaching. Even when we preach "catechetical sermons," we preach them from texts of Scripture not the texts of the catechism.
Yes, absolutely. A hungering and thirsting laity should know this. A three volume set, available from NPH, "The Wauwatosa Theology" is a rich treasure of foundational essays.
August Pieper's essay, "Scripture Study as the Special Task of the Pastor," should be read by all and taken to heart. J.P. Koehler's "Biblical hermeneutics," and his essays on the Lutheran chorale are also must read.
Wauwatosa theology (WT) sets up a false dichotomy. Preaching should be both exegetical AND dogmatic. WT leads to what is known as the “Wauwatosa Gospel, liberated from the dogma of law and gospel. WT was influenced by late rationalism and cast a very poor understanding of church and ministry. Comparing the writings of WT to the political rhetoric of the early twentieth century you will see a common thread of influence from the world. A century after they abandoned "father's theology" the Wauwatosans have become the fathers.
A valuable conversation. I notice that the machine transcription rendered W Beitz surname as Bites. A correction seems prudent for the sake of those who would want to dig deeper into that history.
Making it now, thank you.
There is a grand irony in this. The Wauwatosa theologians and their heirs end up demanding conformity with dogma "because so-and-so said it" just as much as the Waltherian Lutherans, in spite of what the actual exegesis produces. The exegetical basis for theology is laudable, but easily turns theoretical as the history and prestige of an institution breeds loyalty to the institution and its formulations. This became clear to me when I began to question Objective/Subjective Justification. There is no exegetical basis for it in the Scriptures, only a dogmatic basis invented by renowned heroes and founders of the American synods. When one begins with dogma, it is easy to read the dogma back into the Scriptures, as if one were reading the Scriptures through a manmade lens. The theologian who wears these lenses then falsely believes he is approaching the Scriptures exegetically, when, in reality, his exegesis flows from the preconceived dogma, not from the Scriptures in context.
I absolutely commend you for the courage to bring this up! As I've wandered through Christendom's halls over the years I see verstockung everywhere. Western Christianity is in real danger of becoming ossified bone yards, no longer relevant in a post Christian culture. I love your analogy of "hydroponically grown" followers of Christ, divorced from the vibrant soil of scripture in which we are meant to thrive.
One of the YouTube influencers I follow, talking about diet and the quality our food in the West, says the closer to the actual natural food source, the better. Highly processed foods have been pre-digested, and thus reduced to mere calories. An intake of purified carbs circumvents the real work of digestion that our bodies were designed for. Weakness and disease is the result of highly processed foods. It's no less true for highly processed dogma.
Don't hear me say that there is no place for dogma. It's important for understanding past and present and where we're going. But it must not, cannot, replace an individual's personal response to hearing their shepherd and knowing his voice and internalizing his sometimes difficult commands. The Large Catechism simply can't do that. The Augsburg Confession is essentially processed scripture--consistent with God's Word, certainly. But it's NOT God's word. There's nuance in the process of ingesting God's voice in a believer's life that can't be downloaded like some pdf file. Covetousness is wrong because God said so, but Jesus supplies a model of interpretation that goes well beyond what is recorded in the Large Catechism: Isn't it, like adultery, more likely the desire rather than the act? Wrestling with the raw material (individually as well as collectively) is the only way to build this relationship with Jesus. "My sheep know my voice."
Thanks again! Well done, brother! Preach it!
Excellent article! There is a reason why many of our stellar exegetes (eg Martin Franzmann) came from the WELS. Doctrine provides the boundary lines but exegesis is the name of the game or "sola Scriptura" means nothing.
Our tendency in Missouri is to place dogmatic formulations over the text of Scripture (or worse, to dogmatize the interpretation of Scripture thus violating Scripture's perspicuity). David Scaer's critique in the footnote is spot on.
In my formation as a preacher, we were taught to be textual preachers, that is, to engage the Scripture text directly in its original languages. Certainly doctrine and Scripture go together, as orthodox doctrine provides a faithful summary and exposition of the Scriptures (as we confess in our ordination vows) but Scripture alone remains the sole source of our teaching and preaching. Even when we preach "catechetical sermons," we preach them from texts of Scripture not the texts of the catechism.
"Grills: I mean, there are a lot of things to be impressed with..." and the following quote are attributed wrongly, I think.
Thanks, I will pull that section to review and confirm
"Hydroponic." I love it.