So lately there has been a TON of drama in the LCMS around the new Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications (I'll just call it the LC here), with many people calling the editors and authors heretics and condemning the synod. I wasn't going to read it, to be honest, since it's not really my type of thing, but my friend Jakob let me use his and since they were short (like 4 pages each), I thought I might as well give my thoughts on it. I'll start with some commentary on the text itself and the ethics of reviewing it, but then I'll move into my thought essay-by-essay.
Also, if you're interested, another really good review of the book is here, with one of my favorite guys talking about it in a very reasonable and nuanced way.
Meta: “YoU hAvEn’T rEaD tHe WhoLE tHiNg”
Some have said that you can’t have opinions on it unless you have read the whole thing, others that you only need some screenshots, but I’m of the boring and nuanced take that you…just need to read the relevant portions to comment on those portions. Crazy, I know. I think it’s unnecessary to make you read every one of the pages on the Apostle’s Creed before you can comment on one from a completely different author on the 6th commandment, but I also think it’s not great to post whole articles based on screenshots unless they are VERY clear (as many weren’t)
Meta: Why does this exist?
Honestly, that's kinda a fair point, it's a pretty confused work. It really should be a set of two different works, the large catechism with annotations and a set of essays on various topics related to the large catechism. There were rumors that this was "replacing" the large catechism, which neither could nor would ever really happen. But also the purpose is confusing. The description says it was written for pastors, but the format and content really seems like it's for laity and priests alike. If it really is meant for pastors, I think the women's authorship question for many of the essays is still a live one, as many have pointed out, but honestly I think we should just disregard that and look at it as primary for the laity.
3rd Com.: Remember the Sabbath Day to Keep it Holy, Steven Paulson
Honestly, not much to say about the essay itself. It was ok, didn’t really go in-depth about some cool things he could have, but on a cursory read-through I didn’t see anything particularly egregious. However, I do still think that this essay actually was the worst one, because we really shouldn’t have people outside our communion writing essays that are supposed to be for either pastors or laity. Now, apparently there was another ELCA guy in there who affirms both the inerrancy of the scriptures and a quia subscription to the BOC, so I’m pretty chill with him. However, this was definitely not that guy. In fact, this guy is well-known for being bad news regarding radical lutheranism and his denial of the 3rd use of the law, so he should by no means be writing on THE THIRD COMMANDMENT, it’d be like bringing in Ulrich Zwingli to talk about the 2nd Article or the Lord’s Supper—if you really want him there, get him to do anything else. But even with all that baggage, it wasn’t horrible.
5th Comm.: The Commandments and Social Justice, Leopoldo A. Sanchez M.
Now for the first really controversial one. While it had an unnecessarily controversial name, I really liked this one actually. The worst part is that it kinda adopts some of the cringe linguistic conventions of the modern political arena rather than sticking with things like “the poor and needy.” Other than that, I like it. It was really just saying that Christians shouldn’t neglect the good of one’s neighbor but should call out things that are unjust.
5th Comm.: Lawful Lethal Force, Joel D. Biermann
The whole essay is pretty tame, and it’s really only the last paragraph that people get upset about. To be perfectly honest, I completely agree with the statement, I don’t think the universal individual right to bear arms is a scriptural thing past our obligation to protect our neighbor from harm, though I still support it on a political level as I think it is a reasonable and effective way to achieve that end. I’m honestly open to the rejection of self-defense (outside of warfare) as an inherently Christian concept, but I haven’t done enough research into the idea to really debate. I think it’s at least debatable, to be honest.
5th Comm.: Hatred as Murder, Warren L. Malueg-Lattimore
This is the one where I think the political content got really out of hand. The first half was just fine, just a condemnation of hatred as well as an explanation of how hatred is even destructive to one’s soul, really good stuff to be honest. Once the discussion of racism picks up, it gets a bit dicey. So he mentions how racism is sinful (I agree) and then says that the church has been grappling with racial issues lately (yes). Then he cites 2020 as a year when there was protests and turmoil for the deaths of “unarmed Black citizens at the hands of white individuals.” This is true in most cases (the George Floyd case is debatable as to whether the officer or the drugs did so). The next part is especially confusing, where he says that the condoning or promotion of violence with words (including by social media) is against the 5th commandment, a principle I wholeheartedly agree with. However, I’m not sure what he’s referring to in this case. Is he saying that white people condoned the deaths of these people? Is he condemning the violence of the protests (which he, to be fair, did call “turmoil”)? Is he simply stating the principle without implying any situations? I’m simply not sure, though I do agree with the principle. He also said that we are killing our neighbor when we don’t help save their life, which is once again true, but to be perfectly honest I don’t have a clue if he’s referring to anything specific or just stating a principle. From there he says that the church needs to “bear responsibility” during social unrest, which I was initially confused by, since it nearly sounds like an imputation of guilt, but I believe he’s actually saying that it is our job to heal the wounds between the given groups as well as promote love between neighbors. Then quotes Bonhoeffer, saying that we must defend the unjust victims of any societal order, and Luther, saying that we need to stand up for those unjustly put to death, both of which I once again agree with, but I am also once again unsure if he’s referring to any event or simply giving the statement. Overall, the statements he makes are perfectly fine in themselves, but I fear that he is, through subtext, arguing for a specific narrative, which keeps me from agreeing wholeheartedly.
6th Comm.: Encouragement for Christians with Gender Dysphoria and Homosexual Attraction, Stephen N. Lee
This one was really good too, it was both kind and firm and came with a very pastoral mindset to it. There were two places that caused controversy (at least from my reckoning): “All homosexual activity is sinful, just as all heterosexual activity outside of marriage is sin” and “The Christian with sexual dysphoria or the homosexual Christian is one of us.” The former is simply taken wildly out of context. One major issue in the conversation is that often people will waffle on it and be unable to say “homosexuality is sinful” without needlessly throwing in “and heterosexuality outside of marriage is too!!1!” which weakens the message by changing the topic. However, that is not at ALL what the quote was doing, in fact, it was doing exactly the opposite, and you could tell if you read the sentence before. In context, the paragraph starts: Unlike the complex diversity of sexual dysphoria and transgender behavior and identity, the challenge of homosexual attraction is more straightforward. All homosexual activity is sinful, just as all heterosexual activity outside of marriage is sin. People of the same sex must not interact sexually, no matter how much they love or trust the other.” That wasn’t the author changing the subject, but he was working with the fundamental assumption that it is sinful and using it to show how obvious the sinfulness of homosexuality is. As for the second quote, people took issue with it for saying that a “homosexual Christian” is even possible, and I think that is an ok complaint to make, as the identification of a Christian with one’s sin is problematic. However, that is VERY CLEARLY not what the author intends, and you can complain that one shouldn’t use the language, but that should by no means negate the goodness of the article itself.
9th&10th Comm.: Justice for All, Exemptions for None, John Arthur Nunes
This one really wasn’t too bad either. There were some funky parts—like where he almost seems to say at the end of the first paragraph that “economic and societal privilege” is a sin. In context, however, he said “A transformative insight of the reformer consists in applying God’s Law prohibiting theft to less-than-obvious perpetrators—the virtuous who possess economic and societal privilege.” From reading carefully, we can see he isn’t saying the privilege itself is sin—for it’s really a gift from God. However, the abuse of such privilege, which is sometimes very subtle and commonly accepted in the modern world, is. Really, he’s pretty much directly quoting some of Luther’s more controversial financial takes, and I can’t really fault him for that. Now, towards the end he gets into even more controversial economically-based theology (that sounds wrong but you know what I mean) with his seeming condemnation of gentrification, but I really know too little about the topic to make any comment about that.
Comentarios