Mocking our Fathers

Yesterday in our circuit Winkel, we were discussing the difference between seminary and pastoral practice. Specifically, the conversation turned to the tendency in seminary to denigrate recent teachers in the church (Walther, Pieper, Kretzmann). And yet, those same men become some of the most useful to the pastor when he arrives in the parish.

In discussing the rationale behind it, a brother pastor mentioned that Pieper was described as “Woodenly Dogmatic” And then he followed up with “But look at the name of the text”.  (Christian Dogmatics, vols. 1-3)

Of course, Dogmatics need not be woodenly dogmatical. One hopes that any theological writing is filled with the lively hope of the Gospel. Certainly a dogmatics text will be a bit more formal, and perhaps less filled with outright songs of praise. In any dogmatics text, you must proceed systematically from topic to topic, explain the correct teaching, show why it is correct, and defend against false teachings. Peiper does this. And he does it well.

There is a new two-volume dogmatic, available after nearly forty years of work. Hopefully, the new book is not “Woodenly dogmatic”. Although, given the time in which it was produced, I would be more concerned that it ends up being a bit more squishy than one would like to see in a dogmatics text. CTCR documents from the same period certainly turned that direction. Early in its history, the CTCR produced  concise statements (like “Gospel and Scripture: Interrelationship of Material & Formal Principles in Lutheran Theology” or “The Inspiration of Scripture”). But at a certain point, things changed. In more recent years, the CTCR has produced statements that recommended against using scriptural language, (“Defending Pre-Implantation Human Life in the Public Square”), statements that disagreed with themselves (“Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events”) and statement that are long (and I mean LOOOOOOONG) on virtue signaling, but short on any practical theology (“Immigrants Among Us: A Lutheran Framework for Addressing Immigration Issues” and “Together With All Creatures: Caring for God’s Living Earth”).

The pastoral theology text from the same period was also… weak. The pastoral approach recommended in that book is largely, “Be nice to everyone, don’t be too concerned about what God says in His Holy Word, and hopefully everyone will like us.” Faithful pastoral practice takes a decided backseat to the synod’s struggle with self esteem in the wake of the seminex era.

I don’t know that the new Dogmatics text does any of the things I’ve mentioned above. But it is telling that early reviews I’ve read have already said, “It would be nice if it went into more detail than it does, like Pieper did.”

For now, I’ll stick with Pieper. It was a masterwork. Only one theologian in the last century could even make a claim to match Pieper’s stature as a theologian. (Robert Preus). But he was humble enough that he would never make such a claim. And those who did all of the planning for the new text were absolutely united in one unshakable dogmatic conviction: They hated Robert Preus. They were theological gnats who could not handle the greatness of his conviction or the clarity of his confession. The one advantage they had over him was that they knew how to play the political game. With his death at their hands, now more than twenty years ago, any thought of producing a dogmatics text that was comparable to Pieper’s has long since disappeared. To be honest, I’m not sure a new one is needed. The doctrine has not changed. The application of it – that is explaining it against the backdrop of our own cultural milieu and refuting current errors – certainly may call for occasional revision. But until God raises up a theologian that has Pieper’s or Preus’s insight into and love for the orthodox theology given in Holy Scripture, we will not see a book that can match the depth or breadth of Pieper.

We may mock him, we may think he is outdated, or too stark in his presentation. But Pieper does correctly lay out the theology of scripture – in a detailed and systematic way unmatched by any other available text in English. He also warns against false teaching – in a way that is winsome but never yields. And if you’re looking for a text that does that – as faithful pastors must do – it’s still the best out there. I would recommend it to any seminarian or young pastor. And I hope the seminaries continue to require it, even if they say mean things about it.

 

If you like Pieper, you may like this little biography of Luther. Short, clear, and with a great explanation of the place of the Gospel in the life of the church, it really is a Reformation 500 classic!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Mocking our Fathers

  1. He len says:

    Marquardt and Scaer are also missing from that new quote dogmatics unquote

    But I don’t think Bohlman’s boys liked them any better

  2. Jeff Baxter says:

    But until God raises up a theologian that has Pieper’s or Preus’s insight into and love for the orthodox theology given in Holy Scripture, we will not see a book that can match the depth or breadth of Pieper.

    +++

    The good Dr. Preus – in my very first class at Sem in ’82 – extolled the Book of Concord in such a way as to make me see the wisdom of being at the Fort, MDiv and Divine Call not withstanding. But even before that first class, he had helped one of my mates get out from under a generally imposed rule about first-year single men having to live on campus. Bobby was one of our Holy Rollers paint crew, lived with my wife and me, and helped with rent as we worked all the way through Sem doing that.

    But Preus was such a prince in how he did it – letting all five of us in his office at the most hectic time on the academic year, and telling Trudy to hold all calls, And when finished, he told Trudy that if any of us came back unable to get the registrar or dean to cooperate, he was to be contacted ASAP.

    That he understood the need for the precision Pieper provided (I hold Pieper’s efforts in his three-volume dogmatics stand unparalleled) goes without saying. DPS put together the little Latin translation booklet for use with Pieper, and St. Kurt always had a copy of one of the volumes of Pieper on his lecturn. Those were heady days in which we mere mortals, as students, sat at the feet of men of such immense learning. Also true – while both St. Robert and St. Kurt were visibly humble to almost a fault, so, too was Dr. Scaer, but not in his classroom demeanor. But one need only to have read one of his papers or books to know his humility to his task and his Lord, but also, to realize he knew he was there to teach us the essentials of the Orthodox, Confessional Faith without compromise.

    And it is not surprising that over the 31 years since I “graduated” into the parish, Pieper has been a most trusted friend. Ralphie Boy harassed those three men unmercifully, but they stood firm against Ralph and the renegade Synodical hierarchy. They were heroes in a time when there were few heroes. And alas, I fear, we shall not see their likes again soon. I pray I am wrong.

    CTCR? I’d rather not go there!

    Pax tecum –

    jb

  3. Bill Triebe says:

    I concur with the author’s assessment of Robert Preuss!

  4. The Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series of books by Luther Academy is a great companion to Pieper’s Dogmatics. There was no need for Nafzger and CPH to produce this new one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s