I'll readily admit that I can be rather critical of the LCMS, my mother synod, and I tend to find myself at the very fringes of normal within our circles, if not firmly outside. However, in some conversation I've had with some of my friends lately, I've been pondering the wonderful beauty of the Lutheran tradition and how wonderful it is that I've continually been dragged back into her borders even as by heart tries to stray. I would like to note: this is not going to be a very systematic post. I am not trying to sway you with intellectual arguments, but rather I am beckoning your spirits to see Christendom the way I see her--not as she is but as she could be. Also important to note, I'll be getting very mystical here, so just be warned if you're not into that.
My reason for this post is that there's a temptation which I have seen manifest in many who leave the Lutheran church, and I have seen it even in my own heart of hearts: the temptation to compromise the confession for a church that seems to "do it better." It seems as if the LCMS has tons of problems. We have pastors who look down upon their call, loose communion policies, unordained church members acting as if they are pastors. These are not small issues in the slightest. However, president Matthew Harrison, the LCMS archbishop, was at a nearby congregation a few weeks ago and we went there to see him. One of the things he said in bible study, though, is that his most fervent wish for our church is that we would "be who we are on paper." That is precisely what I want to express here.
This is a much different message than many of the responses to complaints and related conversion to other bodies. Most often, I hear the response that "There are issues in every church body." In my view, this is not the most helpful. First of all, this isn't going to stop them from converting, because they will either still not notice the problems or simply deny that such problems exist for other reasons, settling for whichever problems they can stomach more. Then, once they actually do convert, the Sunk Cost fallacy kicks in full throttle. In other words, once they convert, because of all the strain it took to convert, it can be difficult to come back because, in some cases, the pain on both sides cannot be undone. Thus, even when you say that every denomination has issues, it's no guarantee that they will even see or acknowledge it.
However, Harrison's argument is instead a teleological one. It is not an argument based on who we are but on who we can be, and I find this significantly more compelling. When you judge a tradition this way, it is much easier to not try and settle with a denomination you are "more aligned with" rather than that one that actually shares your view. This is a discipline which many of us have to put up with. Within our body, there are plenty of places with absolutely abysmal practce (or even doctrine) and where there are few, if any, truly confessional churches. However, some great examples actually come from outside the US. For example, there are some Lutherans in Ireland who converted because of what they learned on the internet, but there are no Irish Lutheran churches and thus they are a people without a church. However, they manifest divine patience, able to hold true to their confession without compromise, even when it seems they have little choice.
From this teleological perspective, I see a vibrant and living tradition, not one which departs from true orthodoxy but digs among the seeds sowed by our fathers so that we may find the treasures they gave for the Church to display to the world. Admittely, we're not always the best at seeing much earlier than the middle ages, but even these folks were very obviously steeped in knowledge of the historic church. In addition, it's not like there's no engagement with the church fathers themselves among Lutherans. Folks like Rev. Will Weedon, Dr. Jordan Cooper, Rev. Eamonn Ferguson (an underrated pastor in our ranks), and the fellas in the Scholastic Lutherans Youtube channel frequently reference them, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. What's more, I have yet to see a Lutheran doctrine or principle not supported by at least the earlier fathers, if not the later ones, and what is very clearly accretions from later eras, we deny as well. That doesn't mean that all Lutherans necessarily practice things properly--there are obviously places where poor practices exist--but the confession is pure. Even as the tares grow among the good wheat (Matt. 13:24-30), we cry out with St. Peter, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)
In this same vein, I would argue there are things which are not discussed prominently in our tradition and which are conveniently left missing from the Book of Concord, the text to which all our pastors are bound. The three issues which have been relevant as of late are paedocommunion, ordination, and the debate around Mary's virginity. The first is simply left missing from the Confessions, though Luther himself did have some quotes which, while not supporting it, do make it remarkably easy to hold to it within the Lutheran tradition. As for ordination, there are passages from many Lutheran fathers which seem to have a very low view of the ordination rite, and I would very vocally reject Walther's (the first LCMS president) own view of the divine call. However, these views are also not expressed anywhere in the confessions, and thus, they are not binding for our teachers. In addition, what is kept in our symbolical books retains a high view, which I see as proper. Finally, semper virgo, the confession that Mary remained a virgin even after giving birth to Jesus, was held to by most, if not all, of the Lutheran reformers, and yet it has only one reference in one part of one translation of the Confessions. This is in keeping with the proper perspective on the matter, where we confess with St. Basil that it is the most ancient confession of the Church and that it should be preserved but that its denial does not jeopardize one's faith in Christ.
I can't help but see these as a kind of divine providence, preserving the right confession by allowing such historic views even when it seems like, according to human reason, they would have likely been condemned by teh authors. To be clear, I am not saying merely that beliefs which should be left to Christian freedom are noncommittal, though that is certainly present. Instead, I see them as prominent openings for our theologians to flesh out, bringing to light the historic beliefs and practice which are truly in line with Apostolic doctrine and in line with our already established confessions. If this optimism seems familiar, I continue to be drawn back to my series on Lutheranism and Ethiopia, which is one of my less popular ones but definitely my favorite. In it, I come to the conclusion that we fit a very specific narrative archetype: the land at the edge of the world, guarding civilization against the monsters but appearing monstrous to the other kingdoms, and in times of corruption, the place where the king hides his treasures from his usurpers. This archetype often was identified with the nation of Ethiopia, and there is a fascinating moment of synchronicity which I won't spoil here (you'll have to read the last post to find it). My point in bringing this up is that such an archetype is heavily related to what we're talking about here. Perhaps these doctrinal gaps are akin to the ark itself. She is, left to her own devices, empty, and even worse, she can be filled with any number of corpses or other symbols of death and vermin. However, amidst these corpses of possibility, we can find the bones of Joseph, a blessed treasure which the ark is meant to carry with her to the promised land. Perhaps from these corpses will arise the servant of the Great One, the one set apart to call all the other churches away from idolatry and false doctrine and into the Truth Himself. Perhaps from even The Lutheran Church, the margin of historic Christendom, will a son come and reunite the Church so that we may stand with one mind against the prince of this world. O may the Lord grant it for Christ's sake.
Comments