Why This Stuff Matters
The uproar over the annotated Large Catechism shows that while we may be united to a great extent over doctrine, that we agree for the most part in our theology - we are divided over how that doctrine applies in the real world. We are divided over anthropology. This is similar to how we can all use the same Small Catechism and yet be divided over how we worship as a result of that doctrinal confession.
Some people argue that division over anthropology, politics, economics, sociology, and how we worship do not matter. I argue that this is true in some cases, but not all. We can hold to differing beliefs and remain unified theologically - but not always with every topic. For example, we cannot argue for abortion and remain faithful Lutheran confessors. There is no room for diversity of opinions on the matter of the sanctity of life. Theology doesn’t remain in the classroom. It isn’t only the stuff of journals and footnotes and pastors’ conferences. This stuff matters in the real lives of real people in real families in real congregations. We have to deal with this stuff pastorally.
In visiting with a lot of people that I haven’t seen in many years, I am saddened at the level of devastation among young people in their families. It seems that no extended family, no community, no congregation has not been victimized if not decimated by Satan regarding these anthropological issues. I know a shocking number of faithful and godly people - clergy and laity - whose children, grandchildren, nieces, or nephews are confused about their sex, have embraced radical political beliefs, or are not on speaking terms with their parents and other family members for the sake of their elders’ confessing the faith and holding to traditional values. Some have left the faith entirely. Many have come to loathe their own history, heritage, and ethnicity. It is heartbreaking and devastating.
Why is this happening?
We still have the usual social problems of drugs, anxiety, and depression. We still have the same age-old youth rebellion - but something is different now. Gender dysphoria is reaching epidemic levels. Doctors are willingly performing surgery and/or using hormone blockers on young people. Never before have we had preschool children being indoctrinated with unnatural sexuality. Christians are now bound by federal law to accept artistic commissions that violate their consciences (with the support of “conservative” politicians). Naked men are permitted in women’s locker-rooms and bathrooms (not to mention competing in women’s sports) - even in public schools. The vast majority of children have easy access to pornography and all of the pathologies that grow from that. American History is treated as shameful, and “whiteness” is treated as a pathology. All of this is mainstream now. There is a full-court press from media, entertainment, music, etc. pushing the same unified Luciferian agenda. It surrounds us so much that we don’t even see it anymore. Some people think this doesn’t matter. But it does. Propaganda works. And how else can we describe even the television commercials?
Some people think that we should just brush it off. The gates of hell won’t prevail against the church. And this is true. If we become completely passive to all of this, wall ourselves off in a radical Benedict Option style, and just ignore it - God will indeed preserve His church. But fathers and mothers have a duty to protect and defend their children. Pastors have a duty to their parishioners and are called to speak the Word of God prophetically. Family members and godparents likewise have a responsibility. Ducking and running and pretending this is just a normal state of affairs really isn’t an option.
People ought to be able to trust the church as a refuge from this madness - especially conservative Lutheran church bodies.
As to the Large Catechism project, as many have pointed out, the vast majority of it is very good. That is certainly the case. But that doesn’t negate the controversial stuff. I have heard two different defenses of this LC project:
1) There is no Critical Theory or wokeness in the volume. The word Black being capitalized is just a typo. There is no false doctrine. This is all just made up by reactionary Trumpers who want American nationalism and the Republican Party to be reflected in our doctrinal materials (yes, that was an actual charge). We should be sensitive to LGBTQ+ people because heterosexual adultery is also bad. The ELCA authors are not bringing their false doctrine into these particular articles.
2) On the other hand, others argue that there really is systemic racism and white privilege in the LCMS, that minorities are mistreated in our synod. We should reconsider whether self-defense (and thus gun ownership) is permitted because the second amendment isn’t in the bible, but is rather a product of the so-called enlightenment. There are those on the LCMS roster who argue that we should overlook the sins of homosexuals because they (those in such relationships) don’t think that they are sinning, and (as one of the presenters at the National Youth Gathering proposed), we should use “pronoun hospitality” to accommodate and welcome those who believe that they should be treated as the opposite (or as some other nonbinary) sex.
Obviously, both defenses can’t simultaneously be correct.
I don’t agree 100% with every sentence uttered against this project. But I can’t agree with some of the editors’ decisions. Surely, it must have crossed their minds that essentially welcoming Dr. Paulson and other ELCA resources into the teaching ministry of the LCMS would raise a few eyebrows. Do we have no LCMS intellectuals who were capable? Are there no theologians within our worldwide communion who could have written on these topics? Why was it necessary to bring in at least one controversial ELCA theologian - even as the ELCA is a raging theological and social dumpster fire? Are these men colloquizing into our synod? Have they repudiated their own false doctrine? I am not arguing that there is any specific false doctrine in their specific essays included in this specific volume. But can we at least agree that including, say, an essay by Nadia Bolz-Weber that passed doctrinal review and had no false doctrine in it would have been unwise and ill-advised?
Certainly, we can and should read theology from outside of our communion - especially in an academic setting. And I’m not opposed to ecumenical discussion. But the Large Catechism is one of our confessions, and one that is commonly read by the laity. By including opinion pieces regarding politics, economics, and sociology, it gives the impression (certainly not intentionally) that if one disagrees with these op-ed commentaries in this volume, one is sinning of holding a false position. It gives the impression that these personal essays are definitive as to how the chief parts of our faith are to be understood and interpreted. Again, I don’t believe that was the intention, but that is the reality,
Maybe a better vehicle for controversial anthropological debate and discussion would be a stand-alone volume clearly labeled as such rather than as commentary on one of our binding documents from the Book of Concord. Maybe there is a higher standard for teaching materials to be used in our parishes rather than simply the low bar that there is no explicit false doctrine. A text can affirm the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ and Justification by Grace and the Real Presence and still not be optimal for use in our parishes and schools.
We are also going to have to come to grips with the fact that we have female theologians acting as teachers in our church. I think we do need to hash this out. When I was a seminarian more than 20 years ago, it was made very clear that deaconesses were not to teach adult men in Bible classes. Today, they do. And not just deaconesses, but other female laymen also write books intended to teach - or at least which toe the line. Maybe we have changed on this point. Maybe there is a valid context for female authors confessing the faith. But maybe some lines have also been crossed. I don’t have a definitive answer. It is a sticky issue. But we do need to address this and hear all sides and hopefully reach a clear consensus. If twenty years ago we held that women should not be teaching men in the church, either our theology was wrong and has since been changed, or it was right and has since been changed. Either way, there doesn’t seem to have been a lot of debate and discussion that led to this change. But I could be wrong. Maybe there has been and I just haven’t read it,
Also, my criticism of this project and my disagreement over parts of it is in no way disrespect to the Reverend Professor Pless. I am honored to have studied under him, and he was extraordinarily influential to me in my formation as a pastor. He is a theological powerhouse, and I like and respect him. But I disagree with some of the decisions made in a book that has his name on the front. Other people do as well. That in no way negates him as a faithful Lutheran and scholar.
I am grateful to President Harrison for putting the brakes on the project until it can be looked at again. Even if the text is upheld in its entity and reissued, I think it is wise to give it a second look considering the controversy. It is better to err on the side of caution.
Maybe we are headed the way of the Southern Baptist Convention. It did not split, but it has become so divided over wokeness that it is de facto no longer a unified church body. I do hope our leaders understand how distressing these casualties are to parents, grandparents, and pastors, and resist the urge to soften or even distance ourselves from the rough edges of our confession - both in terms of confessed academic theology, and in how it is lived out outside of academia.
I’m sure I will still lose a lot of friends over this. I know this kind of division happened during the Walkout and Seminex. But pastors are not called to make friends. We are called to confess, preach, and teach. We are called to defend our flocks. And in the final analysis, each pastor is called to do the final review - doctrinally and otherwise - regarding what materials he will use in the parish. I do hope and pray that we will have a godly unity in our Synod. I hope we do not become yet one more casualty to liberal theology, critical theory (biblical and social), and a passive acceptance of the world’s confession. We emerged from the Seminex years battered and smaller, but united. Maybe we will have to go through another such crucible. I sure hope not.
Lord, have mercy.