Winding Up Confessional Lutherans

Published on by D. G. Hart

A post about Protestants and American conservatism provoked one young, saber rattling, Missouri Synod Lutheran to produce the quote of the day. Aside from its punch, it also shows how hard the “hermeneutic of continuity” is to buy for anyone outside Rome and why that hermeneutic looks so self-serving.

By the way, the videos are priceless.

“Rome is the last large and strong bastion against modernity (philosophically understood) in the West.”

This and other comments purport that “Rome” (our metonym of choice for the RCC) is a monolith. It’s very important — an article of faith, in fact — for the Roman Christian to affirm that it is. But the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity” which (it is claimed) gives univocity to the lone Latin see’s pronouncements over the course of two millenia, wedding the “spirit” of Unam Sanctam, Exsurge Domine, and the Tridentine Canons and Decrees with that of Vatican II, is a philosophical and epistemological unicorn. It isn’t apparent to anyone who isn’t required to believe it. Moreover, it would make Ruth Bader Ginsburg blush.

Also implicit . . . is the thesis that it is the mission of the Church to transform the world. While this is a thesis that could be argued (though not one that I agree with), it is not one that I should be assumed. So, too, with the assertion that one can “make a somewhat similar claim about Rome”, i.e., a claim comparable to that of the Old South being the “last non-materialist civilization in the Western World.” If one can make that claim, I, for one, would like to see it made and developed. For now, I’ll just say that I’m not sure an institution which came up with the idea of the “parvity of matter” as a way of grading sins can ever be in that contest.

The Lutheran critique of Rome is that it got to the point where it was not a faithful conservator of the tradition that was entrusted to the Church, and that there was no exclusive promise from Christ to all of Rome’s bishops for all of time that Rome a) was infallible and supreme among the apostolic sees, or b) would necessarily remain a faithful conservator simply by dint of being Rome. So far, that’s also the Eastern critique. But this critique has only to do with theology, and I’m trying not to go too far down that path.

That having been said, the foregoing presumption on the part of RCs with respect to theology seems to breed similar presumptions with respect to politics, culture, &c. Since Rome claims to have ever been the Church itself which other ecclesial bodies can only separate from or rejoin, it likes to claim that every culturally sanative influence which the Church has ever had on the world (the “culture,” if you wish) has been its influence. Benedict of Nursia? Surely he was not just a Western Christian — no, he must have been a Roman Catholic and a devoted papalist. Augustine of Hippo? Boniface of Mainz? Patrick of Ireland? The same claim is made. Were you a Christian in the West before 1517? Then you must have been a Roman Catholic. Were you a Christian in the first century? Roman Catholic. Yet it make just as much sense (and just as little) for me to claim that all of these men were “Lutherans.” But Rome continues to do this all the time today — with all of the abovementioned saints (and many more), as well as with any number of luminaries ranging from C.S. Lewis to Shakespeare. “That person is just too wonderful to have not been a Roman Catholic!” But you can’t take the historical developments of one era and then use it as your heuristic guide for cherry-picking all of your favorite dead people for your team. I call shenanigans.

Conservative? It all depends on what you’re conserving. As a Lutheran, I see it as the duty (yea, the Great Commission) of the Church to conserve the deposit of faith and carry it to the ends of the earth. Rome, on the other hand, says that doctrine is “developing.” Hmmm. Yet Rome’s faithful become indignant right along with the best of them when liberal jurists claim that the US Constitution is a “living document” whose doctrines are developing.

There’s a reason God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on stone tablets and instructed His prophets to follow suit. Man’s purportedly sacred “living traditions” become perverse without fail. As with politics, so, too, with theology. Rome is not conservative; they’ve just reserved for themselves the singular right to be liberal. As far as I’m concerned, the Roman Catholic Church is simply a denomination that started in 1563 with the close of the Council of Trent. A very rich denomination with a very mixed past, but just a denomination. RCC =/= CC.

What this means for individual Roman Catholics is another thing. I’m not impugning any individual’s bona fides as a Christian or a conservative. That’s none of my concern here. But neither can anyone simply assert carte blanche that the Church of Rome is the world’s arch-conservative institution, or even the oldest . . . . And I won’t lie, I think it’s important to take a pin to Rome’s balloon on some matters. The spirit of the Borgias still lives, and it must be kept at bay. The Lutheran quarrel with Rome is actually quite friendly, all things considered…

Again, Rome is no monolith. Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Remember that next time you hear Gregorian chant and feel either jealous or smug.

39 thoughts on “Winding Up Confessional Lutherans”

  1. As Macintyre reminded us, we can’t avoid the questions. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

    Christ Against Culture? Which Culture?
    Christ Transforming Culture? Which Culture?
    The Covenant Promise? Which Covenant?

    For Whom is the Promise? is the Promise Conditional?

    I very much like the Lutheran quotation. We have the same enemies.

    Of course there are different versions of being Lutheran, especially on the use of the law to conserve common spaces. I am thinking not so much of the debate about “third use” (rule of life) vs killing (accusing, condemning, convicting) effect of the law, but the other “use”—to restrain the forces of chaos. Even here, there is great difference between one Lutheran and another.

    For example, consider this recent essay by David Scaer.

    http://lutheran-in-sc.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-good-people.html

    This essay is too antinomian for an ‘anabaptist” like me—it’s one thing to say be careful about reading providence and another to deny that there are historical consequences for sin.

    Like

  3. I agree, Katy. Moreover, I find the word “antinomian” a bit too harsh a denouncement of what Scaer was attempting to say. Going around in life and pointing at this, that, or the other thing as supporting evidence of God’s retribution will only take you back to the beginning and leave you wondering whether or not you really should avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks.

    When I view the photograph of that bent and twisted cross on the steeple of the ELCA church that the tornado struck across the street from that synod’s ill-fated convention a few years ago it would be easy for me to pronounce God’s statement of displeasure with the proceedings. And maybe it was. But I have no proof of it and to rally around the issue with certainty is to wade into an unforgiving quicksand that sucks you deeper and deeper as you proceed.

    Like

  4. Antinomian is kind of a touchy word around our circles, as most anti-2K people accuse us 2K people of wallowing in antinomianism….

    Like

  6. C-dubs, but his American counterpart (Dwight Shrute) is Anabaptist. They’re also fun to wind up.

    Conservative? It all depends on what you’re conserving. As a Lutheran, I see it as the duty (yea, the Great Commission) of the Church to conserve the deposit of faith and carry it to the ends of the earth. Rome, on the other hand, says that doctrine is “developing.” Hmmm. Yet Rome’s faithful become indignant right along with the best of them when liberal jurists claim that the US Constitution is a “living document” whose doctrines are developing.

    Ding.

    Like

  7. Thanks Katy for the Pless essay. And I apologize for the a word. Because I myself (because of my emphasis on the imputed righteousness of Christ’s death) get called an “antinomian” so often, I tend to use the word in flexible ways, sometimes as an ironic positive. But this is no excuse for my loose (unexplained) use of the word. I am sorry, Kent and all who read…

    Of course I think those who teach natural law for the one kingdom (the one beast) are “antinomian” in one sense. But then again, the legalists who find assurance in their lifestyle are “antinomian” in thinking that something less than perfection is what keeps in the covenant or causes God to bless them…

    Like

  8. Zrimley, now I get it. Can you picture DGH putting Dr.Kloosterman’s stapler in Jello?

    Like

  10. Mark, I wasn’t offended, just a little confused. It’s hard for me to keep up with all the levels of irony and sarcasm on this blog. I certainly don’t think individual Lutherans are free of the label antinomian (I have heard plenty of LCMS antinomian sermons, unfortunately), I just don’t think our theology is inherently antinomian. Anyhow, no defense on my part sharing that essay. I know this is a friendly place for Lutherans.

    To the original post, I’m glad Trent showed up (the Lutheran one, not the Council) to take over the comment section over at FPR. He did a fine job.

    Like

  11. C-dubs, it’s weird you say that, I picture that all the time. But don’t Darryl a hero. Do you know who the real heroes are? The guys who wake up every morning and go into their normal jobs, and get a distress call from the Commissioner and take off their glasses and change into capes and fly around fighting crime. Those are the real heroes. Also, Bono.

    Like

  13. Hey Katy, if you want to see irony and sarcasm at a Lutheran blog (that makes the discussions on this site seem lame by comparison) go to Steadfastlutherans.org. And they are not shy about lumping all P/R into the same category and butchering them over there (unlike what the folks here do to Lutherans).

    Like

  14. Zrim, thanks, this will help me converse with my Reformed Baptist MIL. I once heard a RB sermon that sounded so mystical, with so much Jesus as Example, and so much if-you’re-not-improving-you’re-not-a-christian, I lost my temper and told her the pastor sounded like a 11th century mystic (a low blow, with some desire to sting on my part). She talked to a another pastor, and he explained it away with the three uses of the law, suggesting all I wanted to hear was the first use, since I’m a Lutheran. The sermon actually had reference to ladder of perfection or something in it.

    I agree completely with the Fesko article, although I hold against him his attempt to read regenerative baptism out of Luther’s writings and sermons.

    I was going to ask when you would update your blog, but I see you’ve been updating it.

    Like

  15. Steadfast Lutherans is a mixed bag. I don’t follow the synodical politics, but I like the more indepth articles.

    Yes, we often lump the descendants of Calvin, sometime ignorantly/lazily, sometimes to make a theological point.

    Like

  17. Katy, it’s odd when old lifers are maligned for not being ecumenical enough (hi, TVD). Aren’t those of us with Baptist in-laws doing our ecumenical parts every single day?

    Like

  18. Well, if you like the in-depth articles the best of those seem to come from Pr. Martin Nolan. If we all has pastors like him we’d have fewer issues to chew on. And, he seems to have an open mind about things while holding on to his confessional position – a very rare commodity these days.

    Like

  19. Zrim, if DGH were Batman I guess we’d have to have a cage match to see whether you or Erik the Ned gets to wear the orange vest and yellow cape.

    Like

  21. Pingback: Halloween Mass & Ordain a Lady | Literate Comments

  22. Those videos are priceless.

    I’m not sure if I was more turned off by the costumes or the music. Does the Church That Jesus Christ Himself Founded (TM) really have to imitate bad evangelical praise band worship music to keep butts in the seats? Really?

    You just know some chick there went all Mary Magdalene with her costume.

    The Lutheran guy’s post gets a 10 out of 10.

    Like

  23. Katy – It’s hard for me to keep up with all the levels of irony and sarcasm on this blog.

    Erik – You should try writing the posts (ha, ha).

    Like

  30. God gave those 10 Commandments to a messenger boy to give them to Moses. While He gave the promise to Abraham directly.

    St. Paul refers to the 10 Commandments as “the ministry of death”.

    Of course it has a purpose (two of them, actually).

    That we might live together as best as real sinners can. And to expose us. To kill to us off to any notions of our goodness before God. (and drive us to Christ)

    “Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”

    That’s not some cute little religious slogan. It’s the absolute truth for sinners who have nothing at all to offer to their God, but their sin.

    Glad I have been disabused of that so called “3rd use” stuff.

    Like

  31. Erik, you’ll get what the cats get and LIKE it: yearly worming and vaccinations, and hairball removal with a small co-pay. Plus all the Fancy Feast you can beg.

    Re: good Lutherans — if Calvin was right in saying that doctrine (including justification) and right worship are of equal importance (with worship coming first in one of his formulations) then the best of Lutherans are only halfway there. In other words, I’d rather listen to them preach than participate in their worship services or partake in their confused sacraments.

    Like

  32. No good Lutherans. No perfect doctrine. Just a perfect (pure) gospel.

    And that’s why we hold so fast to the true presence of God in the sacraments. It comes to us, purely, in that external Word. Sop we can have assurance and freedom without having to muck around inside of ourselves looking for it.

    Off to the salt mine.

    Later, gents.

    Like

  33. CW: I’d rather listen to them preach than participate in their worship services or partake in their confused sacraments.

    That’s my view on more denominations than I can shake a stick at.

    Like

  34. That’s a good point, Ken. In the PCA, though, I find that if the worship is screwed up then the preaching/doctrine/order is wanting, too. Calvin was on to something. They’re a package — worship, doctrine, and order (including government and discipline).

    Like

  35. “In other words, I’d rather listen to them preach than participate in their worship services or partake in their confused sacraments.”

    Likewise.

    Like

  37. I keep on thinking the picture at the top of this post is hilarious. Truly a wound-up Lutheran there.
    What is the division of labor here? Does DGH write the posts and JM select the pictures?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.