In my opinion, one of the biggest problems facing the church today, especially the Lutheran church, is the intellectual disconnect between the modern church and the church fathers. The Roman and Eastern churches love to point this out and blame it on Sola Scriptura, but I don't think that's the case, for the simple fact that many of the church fathers held to the doctrine! For example, St. Ambrose in the west asks rhetorically, "For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" (On the Duties of the Clergy 1.23.102) and St. Basil in the east writes on the relationship between tradition and the scriptures, "I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Epistle 189.3)
The problem, on the other hand, is that we have fallen into the same issue as the Roman and Eastern churches in creating our own "infallible magisterium," but instead of finding it in the ancient church, we find it in 16th-century Germans. In a way, our holy tradition has simply been shifted down a few generations, and this should not be so. We see every Lutheran theologian being an expert in Luther or Pieper but with little reading of Jerome or Irenaeus, unless arguing with a Baptacostal about infant baptism. It's a similar issue that the rest of Protestantism is having with the Trinity: it only comes up when debating with Muslim keyboard jihadis, and thus very few actually understand or even care, hence the novel issue with Social Trinitarianism. In the same way, our understanding of the fathers has waned, and with it has come our Catholicism, that connection with the universal church from all times and places.
This was not always the case, however. Martin Chemnitz, one of the authors of the Formula, was an avid patristic scholar and included a plethora of quotations of the fathers in his Examination of the Council of Trent, and Luther himself was an expert in the writings of St. Augustine. However, in our devotion to the Lutheran fathers, we have come to the point where that is all anyone reads, and the number of Lutheran patristics scholars is almost nil. I would argue that this is the reason for the Lutheran exodus towards Rome and the East, and if we don't course-correct, we may find a further-shrinking body of historically-devoted and Catholic clergy.
Another issue playing into it is our name and ecclesial practice. The story about a debate is sometimes more important than the actual debate itself. For example, in the case of Matt Walsh's documentary What is a Woman?, the film itself is excellent and actually addresses the issue incredibly well, but unfortunately, it is getting much less attention than it deserves because it has his name attached to it and is put out by the Daily Wire. A similar issue is at hand with the debates between Lutherans and other liturgical traditions. When you see a debate between the two, it is almost always framed as "the Lutherans versus the Catholics" or "the Lutherans versus the Orthodox." This was intentional in Rome giving us that name, because it was implies we were a schismatic and heretical group following Luther. When you see how the debates in the church Councils are always framed, it's "Arians versus Catholics" or "Nestorians versus Orthodox." In some sense, this rhetorical shift has become a self-fulfilling prophecy where we study the man who "started" our denomination while Rome continues to claim that Christ started theirs! Of course, the existence of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches and the fact that they both claim to have the apostolic witness does serve to validate the other groups like the Lutherans and Anglicans, which claim the same, but neither will be free from their heritage of a supposed rebellious monk and licentious king respectively until they can become truly Catholic. The Anglicans, fortunately for them, are on their way, as they have apostolic succession and canonical bishops, but we, though we have bodies in the ILC who have the same, have decided to simply not make use of our resources and risk forfeiting our right to be part of an ecumenical council if the time comes.
However, this is not simply an issue of wanting the other churches to respect us, but of the unity of Christ Himself. Remember when our Lord prays "that they [the Church] would be one, as we are One" (John 17:11). It would be an ecumenical gesture of the highest measure and would bring the Church one step closer to the unity of Christ's body, and what's more, it would bring us more in line with the confessional understanding of the proper call and the usefulness (but not necessity) of bishops.
I pray that the LCMS and all of Christendom would be more willing to honor their fathers and mothers in the faith and where they err, like Shem and Japheth of old, walk backwards so as to not see their nakedness and cover their faults with love, since love covers a multitude of sins. Amen.
Commenti