+++
There are two uses of the term “confess” in the Bible. The first use of the term “confess” is the one that is familiar to most Christians. It is to confess sin. We confess our sins to God and we confess our sins to each other (Leviticus 16.21; Psalm 32.5; James 5.16; 1 John 1.9). It is always the goal of confession of sins to seek forgiveness and reconciliation.
There is another use of the term “confess” in the Bible. This use of the term “confess” is not as familiar to Christians, but it is just as important. It is to state openly what we believe. We confess our faith, for example, in the words of the three ecumenical creeds, Nicene, Apostles’, and Athanasian.
Jesus said: “. . . everyone who confesses me before men, I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10.32-33; see also Romans 10.8-10 and Philippians 2.9-11).
Jesus calls us to confess him openly to the world. Worship is one way we do this. When someone asks you to state what you believe, you would say what you believe about Christ, that he is both God and man, that he was born of a virgin, that he was crucified for the sins of all humankind, that he rose from the dead, and so on. This would be your “confession” of faith.
The word “confess” in the New Testament means “to say the same thing.” When God says something about us, we confess with God, or “we say the same thing” he says about us. In other words, faith leads us to agree with what God has to say about us.
Lutherans believe specific things about our relationship with Christ. We believe that we possess no inner worth to connect us to God or any ability which would make it possible for us to choose Christ as our Savior. In other words, we do not have free will. The human will has become so corrupted by sin, that it is incapable of choosing Christ.
When Paul wrote to the Ephesians he stated plainly, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2.1-10). A corpse cannot resuscitate itself. In other words, we cannot choose Christ.
So what we confess about our relationship with Christ is important. If it is our claim (our confession) that we can choose Christ, then our confession is no longer biblical, because the Bible leads us to understand that we cannot choose Christ. “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15.16).
What does this have to do with worship? When we worship, we sing hymns or songs the words of which refer to any number of things. They might refer to God the Creator, or Christ our Redeemer, or the Holy Spirit. Or the hymn or song might refer to all three, proclaiming (or confessing) the holy Trinity.
Worship is one way the church confesses (or proclaims) Christ to the world. What we speak and sing in worship confesses openly to the world the truth of Christ as this is given in Scripture. If what we speak and sing in worship does not proclaim (or confess) the truth as it is given in Scripture (because the song or hymn has been tainted by false teaching about Christ), then we are not confessing the Christ of Scripture.
When we do not confess the Christ of Scripture, we are really confessing a Christ of our own making (see Matthew 16.13-14). Then we have crossed over into the scary realm of idolatry, and we all know where this leads in the end. If we use a worship song or hymn that incorrectly confesses Christ or our relationship with Christ (decision theology, for example), then we need to be more careful about choosing songs and hymns in our worship that are faithful to confess the Christ of Scripture.
Some Lutherans have chosen to adopt contemporary worship forms for the sake of reaching the unchurched. Sometimes we use contemporary worship with a great deal of caution. We use a critical eye to make sure that the Christ confessed in the songs that are sung is the Christ given in Scripture.
Sometimes we cast caution to the wind. We use contemporary worship uncritically, and we end up singing songs that confess something about Christ that is based on human reason rather than what is given in the biblical text. We wish not to be bothered with the words. We just like the rhythm of the beat, the melody of the tune, the harmonious chords that make us feel good, and we think that because the music makes us feel good then God must be present among us.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the essay, most Christians don’t understand the concept of confession as an open declaration of what the church believes. (Here I refer the reader again to Matthew 10.32-33; Romans 10.8-10; and Philippians 2.9-11) Whether we realize it or not, this is a crucial aspect of being a Christian, and it is precisely what we do when we sing hymns and songs in worship.
We must always be concerned that what we confess about Christ in all that we say (not just in worship) agrees with what Christ has said about himself in the holy Scriptures. Remember, this is the fundamental meaning of “confess,” to say the same thing about our relationship with Christ that he has said about it in Scripture.
Again, to apply this to worship, there are those who use contemporary forms uncritically. They claim that worship is adiaphora.
Adiaphora is a word the reformers used when they wrote about humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. Adiaphora is a Greek word that refers to “things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God.” In other words, God’s Word gives clear and explicit guidance on many matters. But there are also many matters on which God’s Word is completely silent. These are things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. The sixteenth-century reformers referred to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in this way (Formula of Concord X).
There are those who abuse the church’s doctrine of adiaphora. Their claim (or confession) is that since humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy are adiaphora, therefore we can do anything we want. Anything, even to the point of doing things that are offensive to others. The slogan is “Adiaphora, therefore freedom!” But we have to be careful to understand that there is a difference between genuine freedom in the Gospel and license to do anything we please.
This extreme abuse of the church’s teaching of liturgy as adiaphora has led others to react to the opposite extreme. Here the claim is made that liturgy is not adiaphora. There is a Latin slogan that states leitourgia divina adiaphora non est. “The divine liturgy is not adiaphora.” This is a claim that is made, not in light of the Lutheran Confessions, but in spite of them, as the Formula of Concord clearly states that humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy are adiaphora.
Why have I taken us through this little exercise in worshiping as Lutherans? Because it addresses two things. First, it addresses the important fact that worship is an act of confession. What we speak and sing in worship confesses openly to the world what we believe.
The second thing this essay addresses about worship is the Lutheran model of confession. To correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite is not the Lutheran model of confession.
The obvious application to the discussion of worship today is that there are those who “confess” the exclusive use of historic liturgical forms in order to reject all contemporary worship.
To correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite is not the Lutheran model of confession. One problem with such a model is that, instead of correcting the error, another error is created and we only end up in the ditch on the other side.
Martin Chemnitz was critical of this model of confession. Chemnitz used Dionysius of Alexandria as an example. In the third century Dionysius attempted to correct the errors of Sabellius. Sabellius claimed that Jesus and God the Father were not distinct persons, but were one and the same person who simply manifested himself differently at different points in history. Dionysius countered Sabellius by claiming that Jesus and God the Father were so distinct from each other that they had different natures. In other words, Dionysius took his criticism of Sabellius too far.
Chemnitz actually quoted Basil of Caesarea’s opinion of Dionysius: “I am accustomed therefore to compare [Dionysius] to an orchardist who wants to straighten the crooked shape of a sapling and then departs from the golden mean to err in the opposite direction by bending it too much” (Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. I, trans. Fred Kramer, St. Louis: Concordia, 1978; 262-263).
Basil also said of Dionysius: “. . . he is carried away unawares by his zeal into the opposite error. . . . he exchanges one mischief for another, and diverges from the right line of doctrine.”
If this is our model of confession, to correct an error by confessing the error’s opposite, then we should not be surprised that we are bending the sapling too far, or that we are stumbling along in the ditch on the other side.
Neither is it our model of confession to make no confession at all. This model of confession is to have the truth, but because we are afraid that someone might disagree with us, we keep the truth to ourselves.
Chemnitz wrote the following in his Iudicium on adiaphora: “. . . Christian piety requires not hypocrisy in external appearance (so that you can imagine that everything is right in your heart for a time), but a straightforward confession. For what would confession be, if it were permitted openly on the one hand to feign external appearance while on the other hand to think your confession privately?”
Just as correcting an error by confessing the error’s opposite is not the Lutheran model of confession, so also to have no confession at all is not the Lutheran model of confession. So what is the Lutheran model of confession?
The Lutheran model of confession is simply this: to confess straight ahead the truth and freedom of the Gospel.
It is not a reactionary model, and it does not import non-Lutheran theology in order to make its point. It is simple. It is biblical. And it is Lutheran.
Let me illustrate this with a passage from the Formula of Concord. In the Affirmative Theses of Article X on adiaphora, the formulators gave us this model of confession: “. . . we should witness an unequivocal confession and suffer in consequence what God sends us and what he lets the enemies inflict on us” (Formula of Concord, Epitome X.6).
This is the Lutheran model of confession: straightforward, unequivocal confession.
Peace
James Alan Waddell
*Portions of this essay were adapted from A Simplified Guide to Worshiping As Lutherans (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009).
+ sdg +
