After Lutheranism – Part 1

Posted on July 14, 2023 by Matt

How does Lutheranism end for us?

It’s taken a great deal to get me, a lifelong member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, to ask myself such an ominous question. But then, these past few years have thrown an awful lot at faithful Lutherans.

Most recently, of course, is our entire debacle surrounding the Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Application. The false teachings, the crypto-marxism, and the invitation of heretics and women to teach us theology were all bad enough on their own. And yet, Synod found a way to make it worse through its response. President Harrison’s retaliatory strike against critics–not only taking the standard corporate approach of blaming the whole thing on racism, but actually wielding the office of the keys against the outspoken–plunged the entire matter to further depths of wickedness.

Our response to Covid and especially the forced vaccinations is another recent travesty that cannot be overlooked. Given LCMS history, our willingness to cooperate with government interference in our churches and our credulity for their dubious claims about masks and vaccines is shameful on its own. And yes, the controversy has led to all manner of division in the church through everything from policy debates to simple broken attendence habits. But worse than anything else was the refusal of our leadership to offer any support to conscientous objectors to the vaccine mandates. I will never forget that a random layman had to do the job Synod wouldn’t and publicly articulate from Scripture and our Confessions what faithful Lutherans ought to have already known–that God specifically authorized fathers to oversee their households, including the decision of whether its appropriate to administer experimental medical treatments. As a tyrannical government tried to coerce us by threatening to steal our livelihoods and make our families destitute, the shepherds in charge of my church body couldn’t be bothered to even lift their little fingers for their sheep.

In addition to acute failures like these, there are also longstanding challenges to our theology and practice from within. We are, for example, plagued by soft antinomians (so-called Radical Lutherans) who teach a hatred for God’s Law disguised as a love of the Gospel. I first encountered this in Seminary, and grappling with the issue in my own mind is one major reason I started blogging in the first place. But many of our foremost theologians remain obsessed with Forde while others work hard to keep false teachers like Steven Paulson employed writing theology for us. Surely, the fact that so many of our heretics voluntarily walked out during Seminex was a blessing from God, but they did not all leave. And we have done very little to discipline those that remained. What’s more, many took the victory we were handed as an excuse to rest on our laurels, presuming that the “Battle for the Bible” was the last issue we’d have to grapple with.

And the list could go on. There’s the constant push for contemporary worship, the continuing decline of our National Youth Gatherings, the collapse of our colleges into generic secularity, and more. And all this in the midst of the ongoing woke war against Christianity that should remind us all of Christ’s promises of persecution. Despite all the vicious blows the world has been delivering, our leadership has done precious little to rise to the occasion. We are deeply divided in theology, in liturgical practice, and more, but our response has been to paper over these divisions for a false pretense of peace rather than risking controversy by actually dealing with them.

But worst of all from a practical standpoint is simply our demographics. Like most church bodies in America, we are not-so-slowly dying simply because we couldn’t be bothered to have (and catechize) children to replace ourselves. This is not just unfortunate circumstance, for added to our list of grave errors is our wholehearted embrace of contraception culture. We may have tried to weakly resist some of the evils that came along for the ride, like rampant fornication, but so long as our vision of chastity is merely “no sex outside of marriage“, we are just as destined to fall to barrenness as any other group of Americans. Rather than embracing the extreme discomfort of repenting and teaching genuine chastity to our people, our leaders have instead opted to blame the lack of diversity among their dying sheep and replace them through a string of short-lived church-growth programs that inevitably end in failure. Missionaries do the Lord’s work, but most Christians who have ever lived only evangelized their own families; that is the ordinary method of church growth which we have absentmindedly neglected to our destruction

This is only a brief list of the fundamental problems in my denomination, but it does not produce a rosy outlook for the future of the institution. I will be genuinely surprised if we don’t see a major split in the next few decades, and I honestly expect my children or grandchildren to see it end altogether.

But the LCMS is just one Lutheran synod, right? It’s not the whole of Lutheranism. This is true, but broadening our view doesn’t offer much better news. Many of the other confessional Lutheran bodies are facing the same challenges we are, and I am unaware of any which are adeptly meeting them. But worse yet is that fact that real Lutherans–those of us who actually believe our theology is true–are a minority among those who bear the name. The state churches of Europe and mainline church bodies like the ELCA aren’t even churches–their religion is Theological Liberalism rather than Christianity, and their God is the Spirit of the Age rather than Jesus Christ. I suspect that the word “Lutheran” reminds more people of sodomite bishops and Sparkle Creeds than anything resembling real Lutheran heritage.

To be sure, there remain many faithful Lutherans among us–both in terms of individuals and congregations. And God has given us a truly priceless treasure when it comes to Lutheran theology, history, and practice. That heritage alone provides a remarkable advantage. However, I’m growing increasingly skeptical that that heritage will continue under any of our existing church bodies or even under the name “Lutheran.”

But it doesn’t have to.

When the Church of Rome or the Eastern Church tries to call us upstarts who have only been around 500 years compared to their two millennia, we often remind them that Lutheranism has existed since Genesis 3, when God first promised us a savior. The history of the Church is the history of those who believed that promise and to whom that faith was credited as righteousness. We may be constantly assailed by the devil through false teaching, worldliness, or outright violence; but one way or another, God always has and always will preserve His Church and His teachings. He did it before Luther. He can certainly do it without Luther. Likewise, those of us who have remained faithful can hold fast to the Gospel we have received through Lutheranism without calling ourselves Lutheran or belonging to a church body that’s called Lutheran.

The Church is no stranger to massive upheaval. From Constantine’s legalization of Christianity, to the fall of Rome, to the Great Schism, to the Reformation, our one holy catholic and apostolic Church has made disciples by teaching the same Word and baptizing in the same Name. But it does not always look the same superficially speaking–in terms of earthly hierarchy, organization, or custom. The persecuted Church of the first few centuries probably wouldn’t have expected the emergence of Christendom. Neither would the medieval Church have expected we’d one day be dispersed into denominations. Well, more and more people are beginning to sense that we stand on the cusp of another change whose magnitude scales with these other profound stages in the Church’s appearance. As Christians bear witness to the fall of modernism, we therefore need to understand that our current assumptions about structure and tradition may not last too long.

Accordingly, the greatest concern of Lutherans today shouldn’t be finding a way to ensure that our (often corrupt and feckless) institutions survive. I’ve lost count of the Lutherans who claimed that we should have been silent over the false teachings in the new Large Catechism because it made us look bad. I don’t know how often I hear Lutherans impose incoherent understandings of the 8th Commandment in order to shut down any controversy for the sake of outward unity. We even have proposals going to Convention this summer to crack down on using the internet to express anything negative about our church body. But the goodwill required from ordinary Lutherans to support such blatant self-serving nonsense has been utterly exhausted. All of this dead thinking is directed at preserving Synod as though that were somehow more important than faithfully teaching God’s Word. But if Synod cannot or will not help us faithfully teach God’s Word, then it has no reason to exist.

That is why the concern of pastors and laymen should be to preserve the Lutheran heritage we’ve been given and pass it on to our children. No matter what happens to denominations or to Lutheranism, we know that both family and the Faith will persevere until the End. Fathers will need to reclaim ownership of their children’s catechesis, of course. But while we cannot continue the custom of outsourcing Christian education to our churches, neither can we succeed in a vacuum without a congregation of fellow Christians. The Faith is passed on, not reinvented by the family each generation. So if you cannot imagine your church weathering the current storm and cannot find a way to help it reach a place where it could, then it is time to find a new church. But no congregation will survive without hard work from its faithful laity to help direct and carry out the enormous amount of work required for this battle.

The good news is that this is what we all should have been doing in the first place. Our families and local congregations are where our most important responsibilities have always been. For Lutherans to take up these challenges is simply to repent and return to faithfulness. This we can do, with or without Synod. That said, we should be grateful to God for any of our institutions who are also willing to pursue faithfulness over worldliness and follow along. And if our Lord once again defies my expectations and salvages Lutheranism or the LCMS by His mighty hand through the many faithful men who are still among us–an outcome I still pray for–then I shall greatly rejoice.

But as you may have noticed from the title, this is only “Part 1.”  That is because this subject cannot end with generalities and complaints. Lutherans must consider what this change in direction and circumstance may look like for them going forward. There are no clear answers about the future, of course. But in the follow-up essays, I intend to continue  to do what I’ve always tried to do and provide some food for thought on overcoming the challenges that confront us.

Part 2: Forming Christian Families

Part 3: Loving God’s Law

Part 4: Facing “Wokism” as a Church

Posted in Chastity, Culture, Family, Lutheranism, Musings, The Modern Church, Tradition, Vocation | 16 Comments

Scouring America’s Shire

Posted on June 26, 2023 by Matt

An often overlooked sequence in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is the ‘Scouring of the Shire.’ After the Ring is destroyed, Sauron is defeated, Aragorn claims his throne, and all the more epic plot points have been resolved, the hobbits return to the Shire only to find it in the grips of a petty but cruel tyranny. From the moment they try and cross the river to their homeland, they are hindered by a gaggle of novel & senseless rules enforced by their fellow hobbits. They see ugly new industrial construction taking root where trees had been torn down. And all these changes seemed to have been wrought without resistance by a contingent of Men (lead by Saruman) who had usurped control in their absence. For Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, reclaiming their homeland is the final battle of the War of the Ring.

It’s not too hard to see why so many neglect this episode. For one thing, it was skipped in the Peter Jackson film adaptations which, sadly, define the story for many. But even apart from that, it’s easy for a child or casual adult reader to consider it anticlimactic. These hobbits had just taken a hand in the fates of ancient nations, great men, and walking legends. How can expelling a relative handful of petty thugs from a rural backwater compare to such an adventure?

But in many respects, this is the hobbits’ truest test–the culmination of their time out in the world. Every orc slain, Balrog faced, or battle fought was merely preparation for them to do their more menial duty in their homeland. And this duty was borne not from destiny or from being the chosen one, but simply from being good citizens who knew better than their fellows. They don’t have a contingent of soldiers from Aragorn, a Wizard, or a Fellowship of legendary warriors to assist them in their task. All they have is the mettle they had already earned: unquestionable dignity and the courage to put their common sense into action.

And the fearless application of common sense really is their pathway to success. When they’re confronted by a long list of policies like refusing to open the gates after dark, no beer or pipe weed for commoners, the seizure of the food they produce for “fair distribution,” and the like, their response is to show open contempt–not only for the rules but also for the hobbits who chose to enforce them. When they’re arrested by their moral and physical inferiors, they go along only insofar as it serves their own ends. When they encounter the weak who recognize the evil but consent to it anyway, they share their character and strength through gentle rebuke. And only after they get the lay of the land and understand the nature & number of the oppressors do they thoughtfully consider their options and rally their countrymen to fight off the small number of thugs whom the Shire-folk had obeyed only because they didn’t know what else to do.

Their defiance of the new regime is rooted solely in what they recognize as good and decent for Shire folk. They do not ruminate on whether it’s ok to break the rules, whether they’re being impolite, or even whether their resistance is justified. They have no need of such introspection because they already know these things just as the vast majority of the other hobbits did as well. The difference is that the four who had set out for Rivendell were used to adversity whereas those who remained in the Shire were not. When they finally propose armed resistance, Merry expresses the reality of appealing to their countrymen well:

‘Raise the Shire!’ said Merry. ‘Now! Wake all our people! They hate all this, you can see: all of them except perhaps one or two rascals, and a few fools that want to be important, but don’t at all understand what is really going on. But Shire-folk have been so comfortable for so long they don’t know what to do. They just want a match, though, and they’ll go up in fire.’

This chapter strikes more of a chord with me now than when I read these books as a child because this is precisely where high fantasy intersects with reality. Tolkien’s fantastical tale of wizards, elves, orcs, and dark lords is compelling to ordinary humans because it expertly crystalizes universal virtues like hope and courage. We might not see Nazgul or magic rings in the real world, but the virtues are more real than anything we do see. To paraphrase Chesterton, while fairy tales don’t teach us that dragons are real, they do teach us that dragons can be slain. We take that knowledge–along with the virtues the story inspires–back with us into reality to face our own mundane battles. And as America now lies in the grips of a petty but cruel tyranny, the ‘Scouring of the Shire’ is more timely than ever.

In many respects, the Midwest is America’s Shire. We aren’t known for producing great works or art or having profound cultural influence. Our affairs are of little concern to our distant rulers just as their affairs are just stories on the evening news to us. To the coastal elites, we’re flyover country. And yet, the Midwest remains a wonderful place to live a good, simple, and virtuous life amidst farms and nature. Our treasure is the privilege of owning our own homes and raising families in communities of decent people.

But like the Shire, the world didn’t leave us alone forever. The wicked ideas of our elites were imported here and have taken root. We consume their media without much discernment. We foolishly entrust our young adults to them for four years of debauchery certified as education. And when the certified return–some educated, many corrupted–we entrust young and old alike to them through the schools and corporations they manage.

As a result, we are no longer hearing stories about the crazy things some Harvard professor teaches or about some weirdos living way off in California. Our own libraries and cafes have trans stripper story time for kids. Our own livelihoods are threatened by HR departments pushing DIE and vaccines. Our own schools have litterboxes in the bathroom to accommodate furries. Globohomo has had its way with us; and many are finally waking up to the grim reality that they’re here, they’re queer, and they’re coming for our children.

Also like the Shire, most of us have absolutely no idea what to do about it. We are used to being comfortable, and we don’t like to cause a fuss. In many respects, we don’t even know how to cause a fuss. Following the rules was just part of being neighborly back when we had normal rules, and so the advent of unjust & unnatural rules throws us for a loop. We need to be roused to action. We need confident men of good conscience to brazenly declare what we already know to be true–that the petty tyranny which has enclosed on us is truly evil. We need men of hope to remind us that it doesn’t have to be this way. We need men of strength and courage to openly defy the new Rules and resist the wicked however they must.

But where are we to find the steel that we’ve lost–the strength of character we see in  characters like Tolkien’s hobbits? Great works of literature like Lord of the Rings inspire us to virtue, but they can’t really train us in it. Only real-life experience can do that. If we are to scour our own Shire, then embracing righteous conflict is the only way to acquire the necessary virtues.

These conflicts need not be epic showdowns between great powers. If our virtues are small, then we will simply need to start small. We can stand up to speak the truth at school board meetings. We can publicly and unabashedly call out evil when we see it in our community. We can proclaim God’s Word in our churches and in our homes. We can despise the sniveling weasels who would hold us back through their fear of what our tyrants do and do not allow. We can encourage those who know better but are fainthearted. We can fearlessly tell the truth and live as though righteousness were more important than “proper” manners.

It will be neither easy nor peaceful. Many will lose their jobs or their families for their commitment to the truth. Eventually, some will start to lose their freedom and then their lives. But every battle will make us stronger. Every defeat will make us tougher. Every victory will make us more hopeful. Every action taken by & for our people will make us more of a community. And then we use what we’ve learned to escalate to ever larger conflicts until every last tyrant is removed and every collaborator stands publicly ashamed of their cowardice. And it all starts with embracing the small and mundane opportunities to scoff at someone mindlessly saying “love is love,” to pull the plug on our televisions, to confidently rebuke a fool who tolerates depravity, or to stand up for someone being cancelled.

It’s clear from our circumstances that we are not the men we need to be. If we were, it never would have come to this. But that doesn’t mean we cannot become those men or that our sons cannot. By the grace of God, even pleasant and docile Midwesterners can learn to stand up in righteous fury for our children and our communities. May our Lord grant us that opportunity to scour our Shire and deliver us from the Spirit of the Age.

Posted in Christian Nationalism, Musings, Politics, Vocation | 6 Comments

Moral Wisdom vs Adding to God’s Law

Posted on June 5, 2023 by Matt

“Where does it say that in the Bible?”

When it comes to learning God’s Law, it can be a great question when asked in good faith–when one seeks Scriptural warrant for doctrinal assertions out of curiosity or skepticism or a desire for assurance. When the Bereans did that in response to Paul’s preaching, they were commended for it. Jesus likewise condemned the Pharisees for taking their traditions and elevating them above God’s Word, constantly citing Scripture to demonstrate that they should have known better.

If we never compare our own beliefs and practices to God’s inerrant Word, then we are unlikely to recognize when we have strayed from it. And when we find ourselves in conflict with what Scripture plainly teaches, the Christian has only two choices: repentance or apostasy. The rules and doctrines which God has given us are absolute; we do not get the gainsay Him with our reason or experience. And so we recognize those who have departed from the Faith by rejecting Scripture. Therefore, Christians should ask this question regularly, for sinners like ourselves are prone to wander.

But although it can be a good question, it is by no means a sufficient one when we consider Biblical morality. After all, Scripture does not simply present us with a collection of moral rules. It also teaches us moral wisdom–the practical ability to discern right from wrong and make good judgments in everyday life.

Biblical wisdom is founded on God’s absolute and infallible statutes, but it does not stop with them. As any parent knows, raising a human to maturity is more involved than just programming a computer. We may start with rules, but we cannot end there. We each must learn through reason and experience to recognize the applications and implications of God’s Law in our hearts. That’s why it’s not exactly uncommon for Christ or his apostles to tell people to judge for themselves. That’s why Jesus expects us to know that if it is wrong to commit adultery, it is likewise wrong of us to abandon self-control by lusting after strange women. That’s why the Bible contains the Book of Proverbs, which teaches wisdom through observations, generalizations, and application of God’s statutes, rather than by simply repeating them.

In short, we are to adopt the mind of Christ, not just His rules. For that, we cannot simply ask “where is that in the Bible” and dismiss any answer other than a direct prooftext. We must also ask, “How does the Bible lead you to believe that?”

In this, there is a measure Christian liberty and greater intellectual freedom–not liberty to depart from Scripture but to build upon it. Here we may therefore disagree with one another without necessarily disagreeing with God. We can argue and debate. We can call each other wrong, deceived, or even foolish. We can even decide we need to work separately due to our disagreements, as Paul and Barnabas did. All this can be done without calling each other unbelievers.

And so, as we endeavor to learn from Christ and become wise, Satan does not tempt Christians with a single error, but with a pair. On one hand, one must be careful of taking what wisdom he has acquired and elevating it to the level of Scripture so that it eclipses Scripture. After all, our reasoning may be in error; our experience may be limited; our personal or social prejudices may be projected onto the text; and we’re sinners to boot. This was, for example, Rome’s error during the Reformation, and so Sola Scriptura was used as a corrective–restoring the Bible’s proper posture of judgment over traditional errors, rather than the inverse of using the Magisterium to determine what Scripture is allowed to say.

On the other hand, one must not escape the process of iron sharpening iron–dismissing your wise brothers by accusing them of adding to God’s Word. After all, our goal in reading Scripture is attaining knowledge and understanding, not simply memorization. Sadly, this error is far more common in American evangelicalism where Sola Scriptura is absurdly abused. Eschewing creeds, traditions, and human reason, they likewise oppose wisdom herself, condemning those who learn from Scripture as adding to it.

When we refuse to let God’s Word make us wise, the result is a gradual replacement of Biblical wisdom with worldliness. After all, life still presents us with difficult choices. If we forbid Scripture from preparing us for them, the Spirit of the Age will eagerly take its place and teach us everything it wants us to know.

Take, for example, a question like whether contraception is moral. Scripture makes no explicit statement on the subject. However, if we believe God’s Word when it counts children a blessing, barrenness an affliction, being fruitful the first command to mankind, marriage the human norm, and chastity a moral absolute, it’s hard to avoid recognizing that 99% of the ways in which Westerners use contraception are wicked. We can also look at the fallout from that use in light of Scripture–commoditization of children, the illusion that chastity is outdated, avoidance of marriage, birth-rates low enough to end our civilization–and observe how evil those fruits are.

Yes, there are extreme medical circumstances which make deliberate infertility the best among poor options, just as amputation is sometimes the best medical option. And to be sure, God created us with observable cycles of fertility that tend to space out children. So we cannot really conclude that it’s never okay to space out children with contraception (and yes, to my papist readers, Natural Family Planning is still contraception; it’s just much healthier, organic contraception.) Nevertheless, it is quite appropriate for a Christian to conclude that contraception is sinful as a generalization. It is also quite appropriate for a Christian to teach that wisdom to others.

And yet, because there is no verse, this wisdom was disregarded as “adding to God’s word” in many protestant churches. As a result, the wisdom was lost, and many have suffered the natural consequences of immorality because they had no one to warn them. Now, because this is a matter of moral wisdom rather than moral absolute, I’m not going to claim that everyone who blessed the Pill has departed from the faith and become an unbeliever. I will, however, say that they are wrong, foolish, and deceived. As a result, I would openly dispute with them just as they would openly dispute with me so that more Christians are not caught up in error.

When we short-circuit this process of iron sharpening iron, we all lose out on wisdom. What’s worse, the consequent foolishness does not remain idle. For if we refuse to reason from the Bible, we will inevitably lose our ability to even understand the Bible. For example, a popular way to rationalize away the Bible’s clear prohibition on homosexuality (which is an explicit rule that has clear verses) is to claim that Scripture was only referring to Greek customs of the time, not to the “loving” gay relationships of today. And so they dismiss God’s clear instructions by dressing them up as adding to God’s Word.

Yes, that’s stupid. Yes, no one who truly seeks to learn from Scripture would ever make this mistake. Yes, they might as well say that “You shall not murder” only refers to the blunt and edged weapons of the time and not to modern firearms. But fools find it compelling precisely because they’ve already fallen into the habit of treating even the simplest use of their brains as adding to God’s Word. All that’s left are meanings that are narrow beyond reason. (And to those conservatives who are proud they haven’t fallen into this trap on homosexuality, cultivate some humility quickly because that’s exactly what you fell for with feminism.)

This distinction between moral absolute and moral wisdom is also quite relevant to the LCMS’s ongoing Large Cataclysm controversy. In true corporate fashion, our leadership has attempted to distract us from the grievous errors they packaged alongside our Confessions by recasting it as a controversy about racism. The subsequent retaliatory witch-hunt, which repurposes excommunication as a tool of cancel culture, is in desperate need of Biblical warrant for declaring Christian men to be damned for all eternity over the non-sin of racism. I’ve already written about how the oft-misunderstood sin of partiality is inappropriately used for this task; but another common tactic is to take disagreements about Biblical morality that fall into the category of wisdom, and trump them up into just cause for declaring men eternally damned.

Consider, for example, the charges against Ryan Turnipseed, an intelligent young Lutheran who, as of this writing, has been placed under the lesser ban and thereby barred from the Lord’s Supper. (He made the letter from his church public; read it here.)  He has been called to repent of things like:

  • Social media posts that were “not made in love.”
  • Associating with sinners.
  • Other men’s supposed denigration of women. (You read that correctly, the letter actually calls him to repent of other men’s statements.)
  • “Divisively” criticizing the Large Catechism. (And to be clear, it’s called divisive specifically because Ryan did so in a forum in which his concerns might actually be heard rather than swept under the rug of process, as other private concerns about that volume already had been. This isn’t unlike what a certain Reformer did 500 years ago. Posting points for debate on Twitter is just as normal today as posting points for debate on a cathedral door was in Luther’s time.)
  • Most outrageously of all, “not joyfully submitting” to the authorities who are abusing him in this manner.

Even if one is too detached from cancel culture to recognize these standard tactics of tone-policing, guilt by association, and accusations of racism/sexism, one should still notice something else these points all have in common. They are, at best, matters of wisdom rather than Divine Command.

There are times to minister to tax collectors and prostitutes; there are times when bad company corrupts good character. There are times to rebuke sharply; there are times to speak tenderly. There are times to answer a fool according to his folly; there are times to not answer a fool according to his folly. There are times to submit to earthly authorities; there are times to obey God rather than man. Recognizing the right times is a matter of Biblical wisdom, and all of us must learn to make the best judgments we can whenever those times confront us.

People certainly can and do judge poorly, so Christians ought to hold one-another accountable for that. Iron must sharpen iron. However, correcting such judgments is generally a matter for rebuke and/or instruction in God’s Word. For those in authority, it can also be a matter of removing them from that office if they have proven themselves unfit for it. But it is by no means a matter for the lesser ban, and especially not the acts of excommunication which President Harrison has been encouraging and, perhaps, even demanding.

When the evidence of wrongdoing is sufficient, excommunication can be appropriate in instances of overt transgressions against Biblical absolutes like murder, adultery, heresy, sodomy, and so forth. After all, there is no argument to make against God. Wisdom, however, requires a great deal more patience because wisdom is not gained in a day. If Ryan Turnipseed’s pastor and elders were truly acting in good faith, they would be trying to teach him wisdom over time. They would be enlisting his father to assist in that endeavor rather than demanding that he recuse himself from it. Even if their absurd charges were legitimate, the fact that they are instead trying to shoo him out the door after a few months and a handful of adversarial meetings is absolutely unconscionable.

For the sake of our churches and the souls which they shepherd, we cannot let demands for an explicit verse derail wisdom. We cannot shrug our shoulders at the specific evils assaulting them because God didn’t giftwrap a temporal solution in Scripture. And we certainly cannot let the devil trick us into abusing our laypeople who care more about learning God’s Word than about violating the social taboos foisted upon us by wokeism. There is still time to repent.

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5

Posted in Ethics, Law, Lutheranism, The Modern Church | 5 Comments

The Sin of Partiality Explained

Posted on April 27, 2023 by Matt

Partiality in judging is not good. Whoever says to the wicked, “You are in the right” will be cursed by people, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.
Proverbs 24:23-25

Many conservative Christians have been going all-in against supposed sins like racism and nationalism lately. My own church body even went so far as to threaten anyone on the ill-defined “alt-right” with excommunication. But as often happens when you doggedly pursue the world’s values, these conservatives have found themselves out on a theological limb. Naturally, they tie their moral outrage to their faith, for that ought to be the habit of a Christian. But they never actually received that outrage from Christianity in the first place–they just adopted it alongside the rest of the modern world. So sure, their actions earn them worldly accolades, but how are they to justify their vehemence to those like myself who were once convinced conservatives stood on Scripture?

“Love your neighbor” is a popular go-to, of course, but being a summary of the Law, it quickly descends into meaninglessness without any of the specifics it was meant to summarize. Citing the “law of love” can delay calls for a Scriptural warrant, but it does not actually answer them. By itself, it’s an inadequate rationale because it doesn’t define what love is. So where is a conservative to find Biblical specifics with which to convince themselves (and others) of their faithfulness?

“Partiality” is one of the early favorites in this quest. After all, God repeatedly declares that He Himself shows no partiality, and He counts it as a sin in both Testaments. Considering how tightly partiality is tied to favoritism, it’s easy to link that to favoring a particular nation, race, sex, or other group. It’s understandable that so many would consider this fertile soil for planting the seeds of antiracism or other woke nonsense in Scripture. Unfortunately for them, Biblical partiality can by no means be faithfully used to buttress Critical Theory’s narratives of oppression.

In the Biblical sense, partiality is simply a corruption of moral or legal judgment driven by personal interest. The consequences are laid out quite clearly in the Proverb cited above–it leads a man to declare evil good and good evil and thereby fail in his responsibility to judge with right judgement.

Many of partiality’s mechanisms are also made quite explicit in Scripture. For example, when Moses appoints leaders among the Israelites in Deuteronomy 1, he warns them, “You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.” So allowing a man’s worldly power to intimidate you into favoring him in your judgment would be one such mechanism. Deuteronomy 16 provides a similar warning to such judges: “You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow.” And so we recognize bribery as another mechanism by which one is tempted to pervert justice for his own benefit.

The long and the short of the matter is that self-interest should seize no foothold in the mind of a judge. The righteous laws he has been appointed to uphold–whether legal or moral–should alone determine his judgments. And we can see this wisdom at work in functional legal systems. For example, when a judge simply cannot set aside his self-interest, it’s generally his responsibility to recuse himself from the case. Likewise, Americans have a legal protection so that spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in court for precisely this reason.

Scripture also makes it quite clear that God Himself judges impartially. In Romans 2, Paul declares that “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” Likewise, he warns slave masters in Ephesians 6 that their respective earthly station will not influence our impartial God when He judges the faithfulness of slave and master alike according to justice.

Now, does this mean that God will be impartial with respect to black & white or American & foreigner–and that we ought to judge likewise? Absolutely! But that doesn’t compel anyone to antiracism, globalism, or the like. For just as Scripture explains to us what partiality is, it also gives us many examples of what partiality isn’t.

For example, it is quite clear that choosing one tribe of people over another cannot be partiality. Globalists often slather over Deuteronomy 10 when God says, “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” However, in doing so, they almost universally fail to quote the preceding sentences which read, “Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.”

Indeed, our impartial God set the Israelites apart in a way far different than anything He did for other ancient tribes. That is why in Romans 3, when Paul asks “what advantage has the Jew,” he can answer “Much in every way” and ascribe it to God’s action. But this is by no means partiality. All will indeed be held accountable by God to the same Law without respect for tribe. But he will nevertheless show mercy to whom he will show mercy  and be generous with what is His, for these are matters of unmerited Fatherly love rather than the pronouncements of a judge. He gave to the Israelites far better than they deserved, just as He gives to us far better than we deserve.

And so the sin of partiality cannot mean that we ought never prefer one thing, person, or people over another. When a groom takes an oath to love his bride above all others, he’s not taking an oath to show partiality. Neither does a father show partiality when he pursues the welfare of his own children more than the children of strangers. Neither does a ruler show partiality when he defends his nation against another nation. Neither does a soldier show partiality when he specifically targets enemy combatants rather than his allies. Such priorities are by no means perversions of justice. They are merely the faithful and just fulfillment of the vocations God has given us.

Neither can partiality mean that we ought never recognize any kind of stereotype–another shibboleth of antiracists, feminists, and other Critical Theorists. When James warns Christians not to show partiality in the congregation by the way they treat rich versus poor, he also negatively stereotypes the rich by saying, “Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?” Accordingly, it is clear that when he warns against making distinctions and becoming judges with evil thoughts, he is referring to applying worldly standards of judgment to Christians rather than simply observing the many patterns of distinctions that exist among different kinds of people.

This is why the same God who condemns partiality also says “wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord,”  “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” and “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” We must judge by justice alone, but the judge still recognizes the human relationships and distinctions which God Himself has ordained and protected with His just Law. Only then can a judge truly render justice to everyone under his purview.

Now, are there specific instances in which partiality and today’s various -ism’s coincide? Certainly. The judge who blithely condemns an accused black man just because he knows blacks are more likely to commit crimes has indeed demonstrated partiality. His job was to consider the evidence. The husband who just ignores the sounds that frightened his wife in the night because he knows women tend to be insecure has indeed demonstrated partiality. His job was to protect his family. The officer who ignores a rapist because the victim was a foreigner who shouldn’t have been there in the first place has indeed demonstrated partiality. His job was to restrain the evildoer. The men who do such things have let their own interests turn them away from justice.

The sin, however, is in the abandonment of righteous judgment and responsibilities rather than in any observations about or preferences for a particular group. Partiality only computes to racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth when we accept Critical Theory’s narratives as defining justice in the first place. But those narratives are what false teachers project onto Scripture, not what they find there. God defines his justice quite well in Biblical Law. Rooting our judgments in anything else will inevitably corrupt us.

And this is where we find the great irony of modern partiality. The high and mighty who are actually able to subvert justice through intimidation are not the racists, the sexists, the nationalists, and so forth. Rather, the doctrines of Critical Theory are culturally and legally ascendant among us. If our conservatives truly heeded Scripture’s warnings against being intimidated by the high and mighty, they would first look to cancel culture and wokeism to find partiality at work.

If they did so, they would find no shortage of examples among us. For example, say a so-called “Nazi” falls under church discipline, and his church breaks just about every rule they have when carrying it out. Justice would insist on due process, whereas dismissing that as irrelevant nitpicking because he’s a hated Nazi would be blatant partiality. Likewise, say you encounter a woman who really wants to teach men theology and exercise authority over them in the Church. Justice would insist you clearly tell her “no.” But if you were uncomfortable telling her “no” and worried that your wife or daughter or congregants might think its sexist, then partiality would lead you to carve out a path for her to teach instead. Or say you find out that a book you championed ended up including all manner of false teachings and worldly errors. Justice would insist you either make sure the problems are fixed or rescind your endorsement of that book. Partiality, however, might instead lead you to seek retribution against the volume’s critics and insist that the obvious problems don’t exist to protect various reputations. All of these things are very real examples of the Biblical sin of partiality running rampant in the Church.

The scales are falling off the eyes of many as they watch conservative Christians and our institutions lose their religion over the worldly concerns of Critical Theory and scramble in vain to find a Biblical justification to cover their nakedness. But appeals to Biblical partiality will not save them, for it does not at all mean what they want it to.

A time of choice is upon you, conservatives. Would you follow “justice and only justice?” Would you be no respecter of persons? Would you work to keep your church on the straight and narrow? Then its time to take a good, hard look at yourselves in the mirror, because the eyes of the faithful are on you. And when you one day stand before God to make an account of your work, there will be no partiality with Him.

Posted in Ethics, Law, Lutheranism, The Modern Church, Theology | Leave a comment

They Will Know Us By Our Love (and Hate Us For It)

Posted on April 10, 2023 by Matt

It’s always struck me as odd that many Christians will stake their eternal souls on Jesus’ promise of forgiveness while simultaneously doubting his promise that the world would hate us on his account. In many and various ways, we expect that if we’re just loving enough or “winsome” enough, then we can avoid that particular inconvenience. “Didn’t Jesus also say that they would know us by our love? Who could possibly hate us for that?”

Well, the Devil, the world, and our sinful flesh for starters. After all, we’re not going to be any more loving than Jesus is, and they hate him too.

Yes, they will know us by our love, but we cannot help but misunderstand that saying when our theology seldom rises above bumper stickers and praise song choruses. For the most part, mere sound bites (even Scriptural ones) shouldn’t be absolutized, especially when divorced from their proper context. If we are to avoid such errors, we will need to take greater care with God’s Word. So let’s consider the two places Scripture delivers that specific promise.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:7-12)

Even this small expansion of these verses gives us two very important details that are missing from the sound bite.

The first is that the love which we are to show comes from God rather than from the world. We are to love as Christ loved us. Now the world certainly noticed the love of Christ, but it also executed him for it. The love of Jesus is not found in this world’s mealy-mouthed platitudes about niceness and sentimentalism. Rather, it is a perfect and uncompromising love which relentlessly pursues the true, objective good of the beloved no matter how much it must defy this world and its prince–all at the cost of his own life. Jesus’ love is one that overturned tables, defied merely cultural expectations, offended the state, and provoked the ire of false religion. It demands attention because it is different than the world’s faulty ideas of love.

The second missing detail is who Christians are to love:  one another. In other words, what will mark us a different in the eyes of the world is the way Christians love other Christians. The more we abide in the love of Christ, the more apparent it will be that Christians do not love other Christians the way pagans love other pagans. After all, love is the fulfilling of the Law, not ignorance of the Law, abandonment of the Law, or corruption of the Law. Accordingly, the love that we give will not be the love a pagan expects to receive. As a result, it will inevitably offend them.

It’s easy to see this dynamic at work. The world already recognizes Christian love. It does so when we love each other enough to have half a dozen Christian children instead of rejecting family like the world taught us. It does so when we love each other enough to rebuke the gender confused instead of disfiguring them like the world taught us. It does so when we love each other enough to teach God’s Word instead of leaving it to personal preference like the world taught us. It does so when we love each other enough to abide by God’s rules about fornication and adultery instead of using each other for hookups like the world taught us. If our love is in accordance with God’s, it will always put the world in the uncomfortable state of shame.

Far too many Christians forget these essential details. As a result, they strive to play the world’s game of love and foolishly expect Christians to excel at it. They want to be seen by LGBTP activists as the most affirming of sodomites. They want to be seen by feminists as the least sexist of anyone. They want to be seen by multiculturalists as more welcoming to invaders than anyone else. And they perpetually fail because inasmuch as they actually care about God’s Word, it will hold them back from this kind of foolishness.

When we experience this, a Christian has only two choices: Either we repent and renew our commitment to abiding in God’s love rather than the world’s, or we begin to resent Christians more faithful than ourselves for “holding us back.” Those who choose the latter will quickly find their love for one another growing cold. They will begin viscously condemning those brothers and sisters whose love violates worldly taboos. They will begin demanding that churches provide what God has forbidden because they know the world will like it. And ironically, they will lovelessly accuse their fellow Christians of being loveless whenever God’s promise of worldly hatred is fulfilled. “If only you were more loving, the world wouldn’t hate you!” “You’re making Christians look bad!” “Don’t you realize that they’re supposed to know us by our love?” And so instead of loving one-another and bearing with one another under persecution, they actually join the world in its hatred of Christians.

For all of its great blessings, it may be that the success of Christendom lulled us to sleep in the face of this temptation to worldly love. After all, our cultures and governments have been informed by God’s Word for thousands of years. We have often held Christian faithfulness in high esteem. As a result, we have experienced great overlap between “worldly” ideas of love and Christian ideas of love. But this was never uniform, for government in a fallen world was always prone to sin. And as the West continues to apostatize, this overlap will continue to shrink.

And so, Christians need to adjust our expectations. Though it can be recognized by natural law, the love God commands is and always will be alien to those enslaved by sin. That didn’t suddenly change due to modernism. We shouldn’t expect the world to be impressed with how much we love by modern standards, but uncomfortable with how much we love by God’s. We must therefore become all the more careful about judging our love according to God’s Word rather than worldly philosophies. The more Christians do this, the more we will fulfill our Lord’s command to love one-another.

Posted in Apologetics, The Modern Church, Theology, Tradition | 1 Comment

Contending Against Critical Theory

Posted on March 28, 2023 by Matt

In Part One, we covered what Critical Theory is. In Part Two, we covered why the danger it poses is primarily spiritual rather than merely political or cultural. If you haven’t read those posts, read them before you go any further.

If you have read them, then hopefully you now understand that Critical Theory is a false religion whose proselytes often do their work whilst claiming the name of Christ. And as you watch them use the power of both the institutional church and the state to lawlessly attack Christians, you will also begin to realize that Critical Theory is yet another iteration of the Antichrist.

The question that Christians must therefore ask ourselves is this: How are we going to persevere unto the end? How are we going to resist the wiles of the devil and remain faithful to Christ in the face of this ungodly fury?

Recognizing Critical Theory in Practice

The first thing Christians must learn is how to recognize Critical Theory at work amongst us. As I’ve explained, Critical Theory consists of elevating various narratives of oppression to the place of God. Therefore, undue concern for those narratives is the first and most important sign. Are the values & concerns of Critical Theory placed alongside (or, worse, ahead of) Biblical values & concerns? This is usually quite easy to spot. 20th Century categories like racism, sexism, and homophobia are not Biblical sins; if you see them placed alongside real sins like murder or adultery, they stick out like a sore thumb. Likewise, you will never read about Jesus condemning the Pharisees for their lack of female representation or Paul instructing Timothy to appoint Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity officers in the churches. These are the concerns of the Spirit of the Age, not the Holy Spirit.

Take a good look at your congregation or larger church body. Do people complain that your congregation is too white when Scripture never makes diversity a measurement of success? Do they encourage young women to earn the feminist merit badges of degrees, careers, and worldly “accomplishments” while softly (or not so softly) despising God’s calls to marriage and family? Do they lean hard into “Hate the sin, love the sinner” when it comes to culturally celebrated sins like sodomy, but immediately find their outrage when it comes to what the world hates–inequality, nationalism, attacks on democracy, and the various -isms and -phobias of modernity? If you find yourself answering yes to these questions, then Critical Theory is undoubtedly being practiced around you.

The good news is that as they become bolder, such discernment will be easier and easier for us. The bad news is that their boldness is proportional to their control of our institutions. When they finally go mask-off, it’s because they are already confident of their victory. It therefore behooves us to learn to recognize the signs before they become blatantly obvious. There is no other way to care for our congregations, our families, our communities, or our nation in the face of these ravenous wolves.

For example, a decade before Matthew Harrison of the LCMS was excommunicating anti-feminists, he could be found explaining that he really wished that God had allowed women’s ordination. And while he said he would not go against God’s Word on the matter, he also said he would try to make it up to women by encouraging as many as possible to fill non-pastoral offices in the Synod. (This occurred during a Q&A session at the Northwest District convention on June 22 of 2012, when someone asked him how he would explain our refusal to ordain women to a daughter. Sadly, the full video has been lost sometime over the last 10 years, but I wrote about it shortly after the fact.)

Looking back on that blog post knowing what I know now, I shudder at my own naiveté. I recognized it as an error, of course, but as an innocent one rooted merely in poor phrasing (the very same excuse now being used to dismiss the Large Cataclysm.) And who knows? Maybe it started out that way. But false teaching does not remain idle. Accepting the Spirit of the Age’s judgement against God’s word–that “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” is an arbitrary and inscrutable rule which harms women–will only cultivate further contempt for Scripture, even if you reluctantly consent to follow it regardless. God seeks our obedience, not mere compliance.

We cannot simply observe these errors and assume them to be benign, nor those who openly hold them as trustworthy. There is nothing in Scripture that instructs a Christian that more women in leadership is a good thing. That is an imperative that comes solely from the world. When you see this impulse in your leaders and your institutions, you should immediately know who they have begun taking marching orders from. The best time to start fighting back is when you first notice it.

By now, you might be thinking, “If that were really the right way to recognize Critical Theory, then it would mean that most of our congregations are already drowning in it.” If so, that’s good, because it means you’re finally coming to understand the gravity of your situation. Too many conservatives think that the Reformation or even Seminex was the war to end all wars. Satan has moved on to new lines of attack, and conservatives failed to notice. We are quite late in recognizing what the Devil has been doing among us.

But “late” is not the same thing as “too late.” Christians have never needed the world’s blessing to oppose the kingdom of Hell or advance the Kingdom of Christ. How much worldly clout did Christ and his Apostles wield? How much institutional approval did men like Athanasius or Luther possess when they contended for the truth against worldly powers? The war is never over until the final trumpet sounds our victory. Our concern is only deciding when and how to fight. So lets consider a few opportunities.

Stop Receiving Critical Theory’s Sacraments

It should be obvious, and I did touch on this last time, but it bears repeating. The first thing conservatives need to do is stop assisting the adherents of Critical Theory in attacking anyone who denounces their gods. Given how predictable they are, there is no longer any excuse for this. In SJW’s Always Lie, Vox Day does a good job of describing how these people approach their cancellations:

The eight stages of the SJW attack sequence are as follows: Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative. Point and Shriek. Isolate and Swarm. Reject and Transform. Press for Surrender. Appeal to Amenable Authority. Show Trial. Victory Parade.

There isn’t a single step in there that conservative Christians don’t regularly assist with. We join the pointing and shrieking to prove we’re not racist. We isolate the target to avoid being associated with them. We encourage people to resign and surrender over fake concerns about tone and scandal. We often are the amenable authorities to which SJW’s appeal, and we have helped carry out their show trials. We even celebrate alongside them when it’s over because we like patting ourselves on the back for finally getting rid of those people.

We need to understand that these witch hunts aren’t simply how they punish those who blaspheme their narratives. They’re the mechanism by which they advance their religion. Every time they point and shriek at someone–every time they demand disassociation–they induce people into offering a sacrifice to their gods in exchange for a temporary peace. Through repetition of this false sacrament, they actually create a habit of worship among crowds of normal people whose own gods are simply not jealous enough to object.

But that blasé attitude toward idolatry does not belong to the Triune God who describes it as spiritual adultery. Remember your sinful nature and how willing it is to abandon God for its own fleeting benefit. Yes, it’s easy to find fault in those they cancel–none are sinless, after all. But as you tell yourself you’re only joining the dogpile because you’re concerned about some blind and impartial justice, how certain are you really that it’s not your own sinful nature at work? How certain are you that God is the one who told you to be offended? If taking the Mark of the Beast couldn’t be made to appear very reasonable, nobody would do it.

With every university, every television show, and every government institution telling you to worship Critical Theory’s gods, it appears very reasonable indeed. And if mass media and the education industrial complex have you so discipled by the world that you cannot help yourself, then it is time to give them up. You don’t have to watch TV. I cut the cord 15 years ago over nothing more than finances, and I have never once regretted it. You don’t have to send your children to college to be reeducated either. There are many other ways of becoming truly educated. TV “programming” is a more literal term than most people suspect. When you stop being programmed, you’ll be surprised about how much of your urgency about racism, sexism, and homophobia just evaporates.

Discern the Wolves from the Thralls

Critical Theory may be everywhere, but you will still need to discern how corrupted your local institutions and individuals truly are. Some are wolves who actively promote the false religion of Critical Theory amongst us. Others are simply thralls lost in the darkness of our culture and thereby enslaved to it. Precisely because we have been systematically discipled into it for generations now, none of us are completely devoid of Critical Theory’s doctrines. I have been railing against it vehemently, but I still find myself unconsciously submitting to their narratives sometimes. There is no instant fix here.

The wolves need to be marked as false teachers and openly treated as enemies. The thralls, however, need to be steadily and patiently lead out of the darkness. They need to see people bluntly and unapologetically rejecting the narratives. They need teachers who will explain to them what’s really going on in terms they can understand. They need God’s Word to fill the ethical and cultural voids left when the narratives begin to recede. They also need to continuously receive these things for years. Most people don’t immediately change their mind when they’re proven wrong. Most people can’t immediately drop their bad habits. Most people can’t immediately adopt contempt for what they’ve been taught to worship their entire lives.

What thralls don’t need is to be treated like a wolf. Wolves know what they’re doing; thralls do not. If you assume they do, then you will only end up confusing them. And the more you confuse them, the more they will cling to what they “know,” which will generally include the doctrines of Critical Theory. The highly intelligent are the most inclined to make this mistake because these matters seem so obvious to them. However, what’s obvious to them is often opaque to others. Giving in to their temptation towards impatience ends up being wholly counterproductive.

So how do you recognize a wolf? Through observation. Because of how syncretized we’ve become, nearly everybody offers a pinch of incense to the narratives now and then. Wolves, however, are much more consistent about it. To them, the narratives are prioritized above all other concerns. This means it will always bleed out into their behavior. And one of the biggest tells is what conservatives see as hypocrisy–fluidly moving from one position to its opposite, but always keeping liberation from oppression as the practical goal. As I wrote in Part One, rampant and unapologetic behavior of this kind isn’t really hypocrisy–it’s rank pragmatism. The wolves will always use whatever tool is handy to acheive their goals. In the end, thralls will try to make themselves appear consistent, but do so badly. Wolves, in contrast, simply don’t care.

Stop Making “Best Construction” a Moral Absolute

As my Lutheran readers will know, “put the best construction on everything” comes from Luther’s explanation of the 8th Commandment in the Small Catechism. At its best, it simply means we try to give our neighbors the benefit of the doubt when we merely suspect they’re guilty of some private sin. At its worst, it means to desperately create doubt when our neighbors are in open & public sin in order to pretend that evil is actually good.

For the sake of tone policing and deflecting unwanted criticism, many Lutherans sadly go all-in on the latter. And in doing so, they actually make the 8th Commandment self-referentially incoherent. Because if they applied “best construction” in that sense to themselves, they would never be able to voice their accusation that someone had broken the 8th Commandment without also breaking the 8th Commandment.

But that’s not how God’s Law or the Lutheran Confessions work. We don’t get to take a poor reading of Luther’s commentary and then use it to dismiss God’s Commandments. And insofar as we’re talking about Critical Theory, it is really the 1st and 2nd Commandments which are being set aside. For when those among us proclaim its ungodly and deceptive narratives, they generally do so in the name of Christ. We have to remember that we are ultimately confronting a false religion.

Putting the best construction on a false religion never involves assuming the godliness of its doctrines. When Mormons come to our door and tell us how much they love Jesus, best construction doesn’t mean assuming their Jesus is the same as ours. When Muslims piously follow up Jesus’ name with “peace be upon him”, we don’t just forget that they vehemently deny what Christ said about Himself. Likewise, when Critical Theorists lie and deceive by Jesus’ name, the only “best construction” is to lay it bare and thereby create opportunities for their repentance. First and foremost, we proclaim the whole counsel of God and tear down worldly philosophies which set themselves against it. “Best construction” is always and only subsidiary to that.

Remember your Vocations

When we go to church on Sunday morning, it is indeed for the sake of receiving from God rather than “doing” for him. The Divine Service is God serving us through Word and Sacrament. But that doesn’t mean that the Christian life is one of being wholly inert and passive. And so when the church is under attack from both without and within, it does not mean sitting quietly by and watching it happen. God has given each of us different responsibilities in life. Some of those are in our homes, some of those are in our congregations. But each of us needs to be asking how to carry out those responsibilities in a time of total spiritual war.

If you attend Bible Study, you can bring up these topics when the text or the conversation warrants it (and truly, laity are often far more free to do so than our pastors are.) If you teach, then make sure your students know what Critical Theory is and how it works. If you are a father or mother of white Christian children, you need to be aware of how much the world hates them for those identities and start coordinating with other parents to find ways of protecting them. Likewise, take your children’s catechesis into your own hands; don’t expect your church and/or Christian school to do it alone without your support and oversight. If you are on a nominating committee at church, don’t appoint people to spiritual leadership roles unless they are openly against Critical Theory. (If it never occurred to them that they need to oppose it, then they are too out-of-touch to lead. If they aren’t willing to oppose it openly, then they lack sufficient courage to lead.) If you are an elder, consider whether your church’s practices are more inline with Scripture or with the world. If you’re a woman and your church offers you roles it shouldn’t due to feminism, refuse to occupy them and let other women see you doing so contentedly. There is literally no limit to our opportunities to fight this war.

And in every vocation you have, let people see you stand boldly against the Spirit of the Age. Find ways to encourage and support anyone else you see doing so as well. When you know thralls are around, find opportunities to gently cast doubt on the narratives for their sake. And above all, never bend a knee to those false gods. If you are ever called racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, insensitive, or anything else on the usual list, make it abundantly clear you hold nothing but contempt for those labels and that the accusations are meaningless to you. And remember: The truth is always more important than your tone.

Be Ready to Suffer

As you do these things, you will quickly find that it will not always go over well. Jesus promised that the world would hate us on his account. How do you think you will be able to avoid that when you begin to spit on the world’s most beloved idols? The world will do the same when it’s squatting inside the Church. You will stand before boards, councils, and functionaries who wish to pass judgment on you. Very often, it will be men and women claiming the name of Christ who drag you there.

Make no mistake: your reputation, friends, family, employment, church membership, and someday, maybe even your life will be on the line. You therefore need to be clear about two things: First, that faithfulness to Christ must stand above any of these blessings he’s given you thus far, for Satan may be given rein to take them away. Second, that you need to be as wise as serpents when you consider how you ought to be faithful. Circumstance demanding a measure of persecution is not the same as you proudly falling on your sword. Don’t let Satan bait you into taking foolish chances or making meaningless sacrifices. Your life belongs to God, so offer it up when He demands it, not when the world does.

Finally, root yourself firmly in God’s Word. Yes, you will need that foundation when they begin to twist Scripture on you as Satan did when he tempted Christ. But also, you will need God’s encouragement. When Jesus said “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” he really meant it. Likewise, the same promises echoed by the Apostles are the sure and certain words of God Himself. He will neither leave you nor forsake you. His Word will continue to nourish you even if errant pastors and bishops refuse to for the sake of their false gods.

May God have mercy on us all, and bring us safely to the victory over the world which has already been won for us in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Posted in Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Heresy, Humanism, Law, Lutheranism, Musings, Politics, The Modern Church, Theological Liberalism, Tradition, Vocation | 5 Comments

Critical Theory is Spiritual Poison

Posted on March 13, 2023 by Matt

Note: If you haven’t yet read Part 1 in this series, “Know Your Enemy: What is Critical Theory?” please do so first.

Many Christian conservatives might be tempted to agree with my assessment of Critical Theory, but also relegate it to the realm of politics. And if it’s just political, how important could it really be for the Church to address? “Jesus didn’t send us to wage a culture war,” one conservative piously declares. “The Gospel is more important than any social issue,” another responds by rote. But while neither of those statements are false, to apply them to Critical Theory is to overlook a very important fact: Critical Theory is as much a false religion as an errant form of politics.

It’s easy for unobservant Christians to make this mistake because the most obvious friction with Critical Theory generally begins when we read about its “accomplishments” on the news. Whether it’s feminists rallying together to promote abortion, LGBTP activists pushing a pornographic curriculum teaching children about gay sex, or CRT activists proposing a new hate crime bill, it’s always happening out there.

Christians must inevitably encounter evil politics in this world, even if we need not participate ourselves or bring it into the Church. We don’t have to abort our children or send them public schools. We generally have no intention of committing hate crimes anyway even if it makes for poor laws. But at the end of the day, civil law doesn’t have to match our doctrine for us to continue in that doctrine. And if policy does result in persecution, well Jesus said those persecuted in his name would be blessed. (And while such dismissiveness amounts to contempt for one’s children and grandchildren, that’s not my present point.)

It becomes even easier to adopt such complacency about politics when Christians presume that everyone else arranges their politics and religion the same way we do. Whether it’s Jesus saying “render unto Caesar”, Augustine’s Two Cities, Luther’s Two Kingdoms, or Rome’s Two Swords, Christians have always recognized some kind of distinction between earthly government and the Church. For all of Christianity’s differences on how that distinction works, it’s one we take for granted at a fundamental level.

We would do well to remember that not everyone sees things the same way. Islam, for example, is simultaneously a religion and a political ideology. Uniting all the earth into a single community sharing a common and perfected Sharia is the point, and outward adherence to such law is how one is saved. There is no relevant distinction between politics and religion in that goal–only between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Anyone who fails to grasp this will never understand Islam in either a religious sense or a political one.

When Government is Religion

Critical Theory presents Christians with a similar arrangement. We may see it as mere political activism, but that’s because we forget how all-encompassing their narratives of oppression are. G.K. Chesterton famously wrote, “You cannot evade the issue of God; whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him.” Well, the Marxist would say the same about class and the Queer Theorist the same about heteronormativity. Feminists likewise view everything through the lens of men oppressing women. Critical race theorists view everything through the lens of whites oppressing people of color. Every individual, institution, social custom, and field of knowledge is placed under the judgment of Critical Theory’s narratives. Nothing is immune, including other religions. And in every one of those narratives, goodness is defined purely in the pragmatic terms of successful liberation of the oppressed from the oppressors.

Compare the way Critical Theory treats its narratives of oppression to what Luther wrote about idols in the Large Catechism:

A god means that from which we are to expect all good and in which we are to take refuge in all distress. So, to have a God is nothing other than trusting and believing Him with the heart. I have often said that the confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust is right, then your god is also true. On the other hand, if your trust is false and wrong, then you do not have the true God. For these two belong together, faith and God. Now, I say that whatever you set your heart on and put your trust in is truly your god.

If we understand idolatry in Luther’s terms here, then we should also understand that to the Critical Theorists, their narratives are effectively their gods. We are not dealing with mere political ideals, but with religious doctrines. In Critical Theory, the two are one and the same.

Critical Theory may not recognize itself as a religion, but it unquestionably occupies religion’s mental space. Indeed, it’s often noted how the acolytes of Critical Theory act with religious fervor. Any denials of their narratives are treated as high-handed blasphemy. Being identified as an oppressor calls for excommunication from society. When they cancel their infidels in this way, they cut off friends and even family among them with little hesitation, demonstrating how their politics supersedes any of the most fundamental human relationships. Conservatives have generally offered these observations ironically to suggest they take their narratives too seriously. But the truth is that they take activism religiously because it truly is their religion.

So when Christians confront Critical Theory, it is not simply a political conflict we engage in through our civil vocations. When we confront it outside the Church, it must be seen as a false religion attempting to draw souls away from Christ. But more to the point of this essay, when we confront it inside the Church, it must be seen as a heresy to be refuted and rejected.

Blending True and False Religion

Conservatives resist this classification because so many of the proponents of Critical Theory among us also hold to various Christian doctrines. However, the same was true of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. Gnostics happily  borrowed stories, persons, and even theology from Christianity. However, everything it adopted was made subservient to its own theology of hidden knowledge and matter/spirit dualism. In other words, Gnosticism used Christian lingo because it was syncretistic, not because it was in any way Christian.

The pragmatic view of truth at the heart of Critical Theory also lends it to syncretism. It liberally borrows from Christianity when a verse or a story is useful in support of its own doctrines. Individuals are likewise quite comfortable confessing to a Christian identity when doing so is useful to their causes. However, what may look like devotion amounts only to utility because they are quite happy to disregard anything in Scripture or theology which fails to support their activism. Think about how often you’ve heard people say that they would never accept any god that “oppresses” women or who failed to adequately condemn the “sin” of racism. Consider what it means that such human standards are held even over God Himself. What, then, do they truly count as their god?

All this is apparent in practice as well because even articles of faith are constantly subjected to deconstruction. When Critical Theory enters the Church, it respects no distinction between the Two Kingdoms. When feminists see “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord,” they recognize it as aiding the oppression of women and come up with many inventive ways to make sure it can never be applied in practice. Likewise, when Queer Theorists see Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6, they spin yarns about how Paul couldn’t possibly have been referring to the loving homosexual relationships we see today. And as we recently saw in the new Large Catechism, our doctrines concerning theft and covetousness can easily be recast into Marxist concepts, and pedophilia can be recast as a speck in our neighbor’s eye.

And we could keep going at this all day because the examples are an ever-growing legion. Many people are now saying we must confess that David raped Bathsheba because of the power imbalance between them. Bible verses about hospitality are being co-opted to demand “pronoun hospitality” for people who deny their God-given sex. “Equity” is being misused to represent the equality of outcomes demanded by Critical Theory, and “partiality” is being redefined as discrimination so they can finally claim evidence of racism being condemned in the Bible. Even the Gospel itself is being denied as cancel culture enters our church body through the use of excommunication against those who reject Critical Theory too aggressively. Our entire church body is being steadily eaten alive by the Critical Theory present in our own institutions, but conservatives want to call it a mere “culture war.” After all, Calvinism is surely the bigger problem today, right?

And this has been going on for generations already. Even a decade ago, 56% of LCMS members believed the sin of homosexuality should be accepted, in contradiction to Holy Scripture. God only knows how much higher that figure is now. Feminist denials of Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2 have become matters of church tradition. The Duluth Model  which renders Biblical headship as inherently abusive is offered as guidance from Synod. Statements calling racism a sin have long ago made it into Synod documents and now into both of our Catechisms. And all this syncretistic heresy has been allowed to build up among us because conservatives were fooled into thinking that these are merely political differences.

Conservative Syncretism

But the problem doesn’t stop with our leniency and complacency about what is actually false religion in our midst. Conservatives themselves end up throwing in their lot with the heretics on a regular basis. They engage in the same kind of syncretism whenever they adopt the narratives and terminology of Critical Theory and attempt to put it in service of the Faith. We try to appear sensitive to LGBTP sinners by adopting their framework of sexual orientation and perceptions of gender. We try to placard Christianity’s justice by denouncing racism alongside the Critical Theorists who own the terms we put into our own mouths. But syncretism does not undermine false religions; it only undermines Christianity.

Here’s how conservatives usually fall into this trap: Even false religions make true statements from time to time, and so there will always be some overlap. Sexism may not be a real sin, but there are real sins which could be considered sexist. The same could be said of racism, homophobia, and the rest. Critical Theorists know this, and they are not shy about pragmatically using our convictions as leverage to make us support their convictions. And so Christians are often challenged to denounce Critical Theory’s enemies for the sake of the Bible.

Conservatives, being the innocent doves they are, blithely take this bait. “There are some genuine evils out there! Don’t Christians therefore have a moral obligation to denounce them when called upon?” No. You do not need to let God’s Word be their means of manipulating you into action anymore than Jesus did.

The Pharisees often tried to trap Jesus in such ways, but unlike conservatives, our Lord never fell for it. For example, when they approached him with a trick yes/no question about paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus didn’t simply answer “yes” because it’s technically correct. And he certainly didn’t launch into a sermon about how important it is for his disciples to be good citizens in order to prove to everyone how seriously he took Romans 13 (which he would inspire a few decades later.) Instead, he departed from his opponents’ script and changed the rules of the engagement altogether. He turned their attack into an object lesson about how they had already accepted Caesar’s rule along with his money & the taxes that came with it. He didn’t deny that we ought to pay taxes to lawful government, but he refused to adopt his enemies’ frame in any way while affirming it.

The same could be said of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. (Yes, that text is a later addition; but I also believe that the early Church’s frequent inclusion of it alongside Scripture indicates it’s a true story.) The Pharisees came to Jesus with an Old Testament law which really does require executing adulteresses. But Jesus didn’t recognize a moral obligation to support the Pharisees on that account. He knew they were his enemies; he knew it was a trap; and he knew how sketchy it was to A) bring the matter to him in front of a crowd and B) only bring the woman and not the man.

So Jesus didn’t fall for it. Instead, he changed the rules of engagement and responded by writing something in the dirt. We don’t know what he wrote, but we do know everyone voluntarily left after reading it. He didn’t deny the Biblical law that applied to the guilty woman before him, but neither did he allow it to be a lever his enemies could use to force him into their agenda rather than his Father’s.

Like the Pharisees, Critical Theorists are happy to use our own principles as tools to gain our submission to their gods. However, we only have to denounce what our God tells us to denounce, not what their gods tell us to denounce. Yes, there’s occasional overlap, but if it is truly our God who drives our action, it will be apparent by the fact that we only make our condemnations on His terms and not our enemy’s. That will never involve taking their lengthy list of fake sins like racism or sexism and adding them to God’s Law.

Since President Harrison used it as a condemnation in his letter, let’s take “fascism” as an example. When people say “fascist” today, they certainly aren’t referring to historical fascism. Hardly anyone has bothered to read Mussolini’s fascist manifesto, let alone figure out where exactly they take issue with it. (Or even if they do; most people will be surprised by the contents.)

No, what ultimately triggers people about fascism is the Holocaust. But while it would be appropriate to condemn any modern fascist who has a dozen Jews buried in his basement, that’s completely immaterial to anything that’s actually at issue in the LCMS today. And if it were actually germane, we could make the condemnation on the basis of the 5th Commandment without ever using a weasel word like “fascist.” Some might pretend to oppose “beliefs that lead to a Holocaust” as well, but since the little they know of fascist beliefs comes from parroting the TV, that’s a moot point.

And avoiding their terminology is key because to our pragmatic Critical Theorists, to every institution under their influence, and to the audiences they hold captive, “fascist” means anything it’s convenient to mean at any given moment. On that basis alone, condemning fascism is grossly irresponsible from the perspective or either politics or spiritual care. Our every condemnation lends Christianity’s legitimacy to their weapon of convenience. God never commanded us to be grossly irresponsible.

But it gets worse than that because of the syncretism. To speak of such things as sin, we are joining the Christian faith to an alien religion and propping up its idols. Our God never commanded us to prop up vain idols–quite the contrary. Morally speaking, we ought not make ourselves servants of a false religion by carrying out its prerogatives.

Anyone who truly believes God commands him to denounce a particular sin which Critical Theory would also decry must do so without falling into these traps–and without blaming  God by saying He commanded him to be trapped. One may only speak of their “sins” in extremely specific senses and without adopting their shorthand. After all, that shorthand is their religious doctrine. They own it and will shapeshift it into anything they want after the fact. Christianity has given us thousands of years of terminology with which we can condemn sin without borrowing from postmodern pagans.

And fair warning: when people actually try to do this, they will be amazed at just how vapid they sound most of the time. But using Christian terminology isn’t what makes it vapid; it’s just revealing what has always been true. The fact is, most of the time when we feel a need to condemn such sins, the impulse comes from the Spirit of the Age rather than the Holy Spirit. After stripping off the cultural taboos Critical Theorists have constructed around their list of fake sins, there’s really not much there of substance.

It is clear that the conflict between Christians and Critical Theory is a spiritual battle, and it must be fought as such. When we can finally understand that, we can begin to take it seriously. We will recognize that we are free in Christ to refrain from fighting for the other side. We will also understand that we can make no pretense of fighting the good fight when we studiously ignore the deadly heresy Satan has planted right in our midst.

And that leaves us with two final question for next time: How can we recognize Critical Theory among us, and what can Christians do about it?

Posted in Heresy, Lutheranism, Politics, The Modern Church, Theology, Tradition, Two Kingdoms | 1 Comment

Know Your Enemy: What is Critical Theory?

Posted on March 9, 2023 by Matt

I’ve been writing a lot about the tragedy unfolding in the LCMS lately: the false teachings included with Luther’s Large Catechism along with President Harrison’s response of blaming criticism on the “alt-right” all of whom he has declared worthy of excommunication. Since then, the story has been picked up by media outlets like Rolling Stone, who was eager to jump on the bandwagon in condemnation of the “white supremacists” lurking among us. Even Occupy Democrats took the time to praise President Harrison for his bold stance against the “alt-right.” The narrative is quickly solidifying that everything tearing my denomination apart is connected by a shadowy demonic ideology which our church body must come together to oppose.

Predictably, many conservatives are buying this story. Like Charlie Brown kicking Lucy’s football, they hope against hope that this time, when they prove their deep and abiding hatred for racism and fascism, people will finally believe them. With that settled, the left will finally become reasonable again, and conservatives might even be in a position to address a few other minor issues like our children being groomed by pedophiles, our teenagers cutting their bits off, and our entire society burying God’s Word in a steaming pile of nihilism.

Well, fools they may be, but conservatives are right about one thing: There is a shadowy demonic ideology driving this conflict. But it’s not President Harrison’s “alt-right” bogeyman.

What truly ties this controversy together from beginning to end is a philosophy called Critical Theory. And unlike the alt-right, which is shadowy primarily because it doesn’t yet  understand even itself, Critical Theory is shadowy only because conservatives never really took the time to understand it. Though confronted by it constantly, we were so busy becoming as innocent as doves that we never bothered to become as wise as serpents.

It’s time to rectify that. We need to be able to know our enemy for what it is and understand how it works. Accordingly, my next few posts will be an attempt to explain Critical Theory in terms even a conservative can understand. So we’ll start with the basics:

What is Critical Theory?

Put simply, Critical Theory is a philosophy whose purpose is to tear down any and all barriers to human progress. Like so much other wickedness, it was inspired by Marxism and emerged out of the Frankfurt School in the early 20th Century. But rather than asserting any particular belief, this philosophy focuses on undermining other established beliefs along with any social structures and institutions built on those beliefs. That’s why it’s called Critical Theory; it clears the way for what they see as the advancement of mankind.

Now, one might naturally ask, “if it asserts no inherent beliefs, what does it mean by ‘progress’ or ‘advancement?'” Well, being inspired by Marxism, it should be no surprise that progress is understood in terms of liberation from oppression. However, there is no single sense in which liberation or oppression are consistently understood. Critical Theory is centered more around stories of good guys and bad guys than around a straightforward belief, system, or ideology. As a result, there are many “flavors” of critical theory out there–each centered on a different narrative of oppression.

Marxism is the obvious example, as it was the prototypical critical theory (preceding the Frankfurt school by quite some time). In its narrative, the oppressors are the “haves,” the oppressed are the “have-nots,” and classism against the have-nots is the greatest sin. Its purpose is to liberate the have-nots from the haves by seizing the means of production and thereby tearing down even the idea of private property, which kept the rich rich and the poor poor.

But whereas Marx focused primarily on economic oppression, his intellectual descendants continually “discovered” new forms of oppression getting in the way of progress. Naturally, they felt the need to apply Marxism’s approach to matters of culture besides economics (which is why Critical Theory is often identified as “Cultural Marxism.”) And so Feminism is another example of Critical Theory, in which men are the oppressors, women the oppressed, and sexism the primary sin. In Critical Race Theory, the narrative is that whites are the oppressors, people of color the oppressed, and racism the primary sin. Queer Theory, of course, spins yarns about the alphabet people needing to be liberated from the chaste (those of us who are “cishet” and monogamous) and establishes homophobia and transphobia as the great sins. And there are numerous others–a wide panoply limited only by the imaginations of tenured professors.

Deconstruction

With the different pairs of oppressor/oppressed assigned by narrative, the work of being “critical” begins. Every facet of society–politics, religion, economics, culture, art, education, and so froth–is examined through the lens of the narrative and is judged as either aiding the oppressor or the oppressed as humanity progresses to liberation. Of course, anything found to be aiding the oppressors must be removed from society.

One of the most common methods of doing so is to declare such things to be “social constructs.” In other words, instead of being some kind of transcendent value or natural good, it is merely an invention of a certain class of people (usually the ‘oppressors’ in the narrative) and imposed on the rest of society for the advantage of the oppressor.

For example, both Christians reading Scripture and scientists reading nature recognize “male’ and “female” to be real and incontrovertible facts of the created world. A Queer Theorist, however, would declare these to be categories invented by humans and assigned (rather than observed) by society at birth in order to impose heteronormativity. After all, it is precisely such categories which identify sexual perversions for what they are and therefore stigmatize the perverts. Liberating the perverts from stigma therefore requires the removal of these categories.

So the social construct must then be “deconstructed” through many and various ways in order to liberate the oppressed. This approach is facilitated by reducing any “oppressive” facet of the world to a matter of mere power dynamics. Wherever we might see authority, they would only see a power disparity. They likewise reduce hierarchy to entrenched power, delegation to power over slaves, cooperation to manipulation, and so forth.

For example, you might think of marriage as the foundational human relationship from which all society proceeds. You may recognize it as natural–maybe even designed and ordained by God on the very same day He created Man. You may easily observe that it’s far and away the best way to raise children, protect women, civilize humanity, and so forth. However, through a feminist lens, marriage is reduced to a tool that men have used to oppress women throughout history. The God-ordained headship of the husband is reduced from authority to power–a mere vehicle for abuse. The observation that men and women complement each other by providing things that the other lacks is recast as men manipulating women into oppressive gender roles. And so, some of the greatest blessings God has bestowed upon us are transformed by this simplistic reductionism.

And the efforts do not stop with the present. All of history ends up being reduced to flat conflicts between oppressor and oppressed as well. Naturally, the past always belongs to the oppressor. After all, they were the ones who invented and imposed all these so-called social constructs in the first place, and the nature of “progress” is to deconstruct them. That’s why they’re always tearing down statues, editing old movies, putting trigger warnings on old books, and either retroactively cancelling historical figures or trying to reinvent them as members of an oppressed group. Left alone, Critical Theory ends up corroding everything good about civilization.

A Pragmatic View of Truth.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Critical Theory, however, is that it takes a pragmatic approach to truth. Natural law and human reason both make it clear to us that truth is a matter of a belief corresponding to the real world. As Aristotle put it, “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” This is what every competent philosopher has believed until the past century or two.

Critical Theory, however, departs from that understanding, instead teaching that truth is a matter of “what works.” When explained from certain angles, this approach can appear to make sense at first blush. For example, if you were asserting the laws of aerodynamics as “true,” the pragmatist would say that it’s irrelevant whether or not those laws correspond to reality (they may even say it’s impossible for a human to know whether they do.) Instead, what’s important is that following those laws will help you make your plane fly. According to pragmatism, that utility is what makes the laws of aerodynamics “true,” and they would cease to be true as soon as they cease to be helpful.

But while most of us can appreciate the practicality of engineering over and against pure science, we can also recognize the obvious pitfall of pragmatism: it consistently passes off lies as truth whenever those lies are deemed helpful. Any toddler can figure this out, for when mom asks about the broken vase on the floor, it’s very useful to the little boy to say that the dog did it. It’s very useful for the negligent student to say that the essay he bought was his own work. It’s very useful to the adulteress to tell her unknowingly cuckolded husband that her baby is also his. This is why you can never trust an epistemological pragmatist.

That’s also why you can never trust a Critical Theorist. In Critical Theory, truth and falsehood are always a matter of “what works” in liberating the oppressed.

For example, older conservatives may remember the days when “racism” was an umbrella term referring to a variety of race-based animosities and prejudices in America. But that was an abstract ethical question. By that understanding, some people are deemed racist and some are not based on their observable behavior. A white person could be innocent of racism and a black person could be guilty.

But if your entire purpose is to liberate people of color from white oppression, that kind of objectivity is not always helpful. And so the definition of racism was changed. Even a quarter of a century ago when I first went to college, I was taught that racism was a matter of being born white in an historically white country. (This was done during freshman orientation because they wanted to make sure everyone learned this. They made us all play a game called “Archie Bunker‘s Neighborhood” to drive the point home.) “Privilege” language wasn’t in vogue yet, but the fundamental concept was the same, encompassing every white person who benefits from the structures of “white privilege” built by our ancestors for the benefit of their descendants. That way, every white person is ipso facto guilty of racism and no person of color could possibly be called racist.

That’s a much less useful definition if you’re looking for any kind of moral truth, but it’s very useful for undermining an “oppressive” society. After all, you might notice that privilege in that sense is literally every parent’s job. I teach my children to read so that they’ll be able to learn more effectively throughout their lives:  privilege. I support school environments and traditions that help manage their education:  structures of privilege. I teach them to behave in ways that will help them to live moral, healthy, and fruitful lives:  even more privilege. And it’s not a coincidence that my children and I share the same race, so this is all clearly white privilege as well.

As a moral condemnation, this new definition of racism makes absolutely no sense–it is not immoral to have been simultaneously born a particular skin color and loved by your parents. However, if your goal is to tear down evil white oppressors in order to liberate the poor oppressed people of color, it’s quite useful indeed. And to the Critical Theorist, that makes it “true.” And it’s worth noting every expert in the field of “racism” has long been using that new definition. The dictionaries are already updated. The definition you grew up with is obsolete no matter how often you use it.

It’s Worse Than Hypocrisy

A failure to appreciate the twistedness of this pragmatic view of truth is at root of conservativism’s tendency to dismiss this sort of thing as hypocrisy. We’ve all heard the line, “if it weren’t for double-standards, the left would have no standards at all.” While liberals chanted “believe all women,” we remembered all the women who accused President Clinton and how the left never cared about them because President Clinton was useful to their agenda. We hear all the time that things like wearing blackface or using the N-word are considered racist in the extreme. But when they see pictures of Justin Trudeau wearing blackface to a party or hear audio of Joe Biden using the n-word, the left never cares because those men are useful to their agenda.

When conservatives see that, they dismiss it all as hypocrisy–that liberals proclaim these principles but have no interest in living up to them. And so we get all the lines about liberals being the real racists and hear every conservative ask in unison what would happen if the situation were reversed. And every last one of those efforts falls completely flat because conservatives are still thinking in terms of the correspondence view of truth and because of Critical Theory, liberals are not.

These things are not principles to today’s left. They are tools which are picked up when useful and put down when they are not. When you watch a man explain in the same interview that A) race is a social construct which produces racism once its imagined and B) you’re racist if you don’t immediately recognize a person’s race when you see it, the obvious contradiction is not hypocrisy. He’s simply using lines that “work” according to his narrative in different contexts. It’s no more hypocritical than putting down a hammer and picking up a screwdriver. That’s why conservatives who perpetually hope to provoke first shame and then repentance by denouncing liberal “hypocrisy” never accomplish anything.

Critical Theory is practiced almost exclusively through expedient lies. When you read crazy stories about how America’s preference for white meat turkey at Thanksgiving is racist, or that it’s transphobic when a normal man doesn’t find a mutilated man pretending to be a woman sexually attractive, it’s not because anyone actually believes such things (apart from a handful of truly broken and deluded souls.) The point is to create confusion and put opponents in a constant state of defensiveness—constantly trying to prove that they’re not racist, sexist, homophobic, and so forth. And while conservatives scramble to defend their good name to people who couldn’t care less, “progress” marches on unimpeded.

And it has worked amazingly well because conservatives never bothered to learn. They just keep taking the bait and allowing themselves to be manipulated through arguments about principles. But the only “principle” of Critical Theory is fighting for the oppressed against the oppressors. Their presumptive narratives govern all. There is no good faith present in this conflict except when a show of good faith is deemed temporarily useful.

But this is just the beginning, for we have only scratched the surface of this topic. Our considerations thus far have mainly been a matter of politics. But the true danger of Critical Theory is a spiritual one. In the next post, I will explain why Critical Theory is not simply an undesirable brand of politics, but a false religion claiming for Hell the souls of those whom it deceives.

Posted in Feminism, Lutheranism, Natural Law, Politics, The Modern Church | 2 Comments

Excommunicating the Alt-Right

Posted on February 23, 2023 by Matt

In an age of squishiness from most church leaders, many rank-and-file Christians are eager for the day when their leaders take a clear an unequivocal stand on God’s Word. Nothing is more disappointing than when that day comes and the clear, fiery denouncements are made on behalf of the world rather than the Word.

So it is in a recent letter  from President Harrison of the LCMS. Shortly after finding nothing of consequence in an official catechism that contains blatant false teachings and adopts the framework of today’s most prominent anti-Christian ideologies, he has mustered remarkable zeal to rally against the real danger to our church body: “a few members of LCMS congregations have been propagating radical and unchristian ‘alt-right’ views via Twitter and other social media.” And he takes this “danger” very seriously indeed, threatening (and encouraging) excommunication for anyone who will not repent of being “alt-right.”

Given the gravity of this threat, it behooves us to consider carefully the content of Harrison’s accusation.

A Nebulous “Sin”

The Word of God certainly stands in judgment over worldly political philosophies and movements, the alt-right included. And while the LCMS has not, to my knowledge, threatened our proponents of explicitly anti-Christian political philosophies like Marxism or feminism with excommunication, Harrison minces no words in condemning the alt-right in the name of God “in toto.” But it’s curious how poorly he defines this supposedly grievous sin for which we must expel people from Christ’s church unless they repent.

The alt-right is a nascent political movement that, by nature of its youth, has no firm definition yet. It’s a right-wing ideology that despises progressivism, but also possesses a great contempt for mainstream conservativism’s failure to conserve anything of value. It’s also willing to question many of the ideals of modernity–equality, democracy, pluralism, multiculturalism, and so forth. But broadly-shared specifics are fairly hard to come by because there is little consensus on what will replace those ideals.

The most prominent definition I know of (that was developed by someone who actually identifies as alt-right) is political commentator Vox Day’s attempt to help define the movement back in 2016 with his 16 points. It hardly caught on or became representative, but as radical as most Americans would consider Vox Day, it’s worth noting that there’s still no overlap between his points and Harrison’s list of supposed alt-right beliefs: “white supremacy, Nazism, pro-slavery, anti-interracial marriage, women as property, fascism, death for homosexuals, even genocide.” How can anyone in good conscience declare the damnation of everyone bearing a label which you cannot even properly define?

But even leaving aside the likelihood that Harrison’s characterization of the alt-right is entirely slanderous, there’s an even bigger problem here. Harrison’s letter is quite explicitly about excommunication–publicly declaring men & women to be brazen unbelievers and barring them from the Sacraments to assure them that they must repent or be damned for all eternity. How can a label as nebulous and non-Biblical as “alt-right” be used in such a serious public condemnation? I don’t advocate for anything on Harrison’s list, but I am a right-winger who has rejected mainstream conservativism and questions the ideals of modernity. “Alt-right” isn’t a label I embrace, but it wouldn’t be unfair to apply it to me either. Must I therefore repent of these views or be damned?

The specifics on Harrison’s list aren’t any better. In contemporary usage, white supremacy, Nazism, and fascism are all practically meaningless. For instance, I’ve personally been called a Nazi simply for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman–a view officially taught by Synod. And yet, here is our President using a spurious label with which I’ve been slandered and deeming it worthy of excommunication.

White supremacy is another label that’s been applied to everything from opposing reparations to preferring white meat on Thanksgiving. One prominent Lutheran pastor recently suggested that there’s a real definition “somewhere between the woke left’s ‘shoelaces are white supremacy’ and the anti-woke’s ‘it’s not white supremacy to think non-whites are gross and should be imprisoned on a volcanic island.'” But when I asked him to provide that real definition, he simply blocked me–this despite him personally harassing at least one LCMS pastor in regards to a specific target of Harrison’s excommunication. Such unseriousness is all too common, which is why these labels no longer mean anything beyond “someone progressives don’t like.” They have no business being applied seriously in any theological context without a specific definition.

The inclusion of “Pro-slavery” and “death for homosexuals” is problematic in an entirely different way. They are at least specific, but both of them can be plausibly applied to Scripture as well in some senses.

Now, I’ve said my piece on a Biblical view of slavery at length elsewhere. I believe it’s a product of the Fall; I’m glad it’s no longer part of American society; and I have no desire to reintroduce it. Nevertheless, can we truly proclaim being “pro-slavery” to be an undeniable sin worthy of excommunication in the absence of repentence? After all, the Bible gives instructions specifically to masters, and while it requires good treatment of their slaves, demands for unilateral emancipation are conspicuously absent. Must Paul therefore be excommunicated for his pro-slavery “oversight?” Should he have, in fact, threatened Philemon with excommunication rather than urging Onesimus’s freedom in love? Must the Old Testament patriarchs and kings be sentenced to eternal hellfire because they all committed the pro-slavery act of owning slaves? Must Walther and other early fathers of the LCMS be excluded from the Church because they refused to go all-in on abolition? If not, then why would we attach such a penalty to being pro-slavery today?

“Death for homosexuals” is an even clearer matter. God himself gave that very law to ancient Israel. Now, that is certainly part of the Old Testament’s civil law, and therefore it is not binding on Christians today because we aren’t ancient Israelites. We are under no obligation to enforce the death penalty against those guilty of the sin of homosexuality. At the same time, Scripture contains no prohibition against supporting such a civil penalty. Biblically speaking, this is adiaphora, plain and simple. What’s more, that penalty was explicitly commanded by God himself for a specific place and time. Are we therefore to join with the Marcionites and other heretics who posited an evil demiurge in the Old Testament who was opposed to the loving God of the New? By no means! Contending that this is grounds for excommunication is fundamentally anti-Scriptural and anti-Christian.

Now, let’s consider “Anti-interracial marriage.” As I understand it, some of Harrison’s targets do count that as a sin. I think they are wrong about that. There are certainly circumstances such as parental disapproval which would make some interracial marriage a sin and practical/medical concerns which could make it unwise. Nevertheless, I see no reason to consider it sinful in itself. But is error about sin truly the issue here?

There is likely not a single person on earth with whom I completely agree about everything–including members of the LCMS. And in my experience, our pews are filled with people who openly hold to some error or another. I’ve seen men speak up in Bible Study to denounce the idea that a Pastor forgives sins in God’s name despite Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Those who think our official position on closed Communion is sinful are, unfortunately, legion. There are many who wrongly said it was a sin not to wear masks and not to take experimental vaccinations. There are even people among us who believe restricting access to abortion is a sin. But I’ve yet to see Synod broach the subject of excommunication over errors such as these. There, they are content to address the matters through longsuffering and patient instruction.

What’s different about alleging that interracial marriage is a sin? Well, the most obvious difference is that the contention is quite offensive in the eyes of the world, leaving many modern Americans up-in-arms. But do we excommunicate for open defiance of the world or defiance of God? I might not think they are correct, but it’s a position held in good faith that God never instructed me to be offended over. I can certainly see why those involved in interracial marriages would be personally offended over the contention, and I can hardly blame them for taking offense. But neither do we typically excommunicate over personal offense. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that this error is being targeted with such extreme prejudice solely because of its opposition to the Spirit of the Age.

That just leaves us with “genocide” and “women as property.” I’m entirely comfortable dismissing the former as over-the-top nonsense cynically added to Harrison’s letter to raise the stakes rather than anything that’s seriously at issue here. I invite anyone to produce evidence to the contrary before I’ll say any more on “genocide.” As for “women as property”, I suspect the biggest problem there is that most Americans posses a child’s view of property: “It’s mine so I can break it if I want to!” We exclude any of the authority and responsibility inherent in true ownership, and so we find it fundamentally dehumanizing. Now, that assurance of misunderstanding is precisely why I wouldn’t describe women as property–our language is what it is at this point. But Christians nevertheless need to remember that Scripture describes us as God’s property, bought with a price. That does not dehumanize us or instrumentalize us in His sight.

Who Stands Condemned?

Having established the dubious nature of Harrison’s accusations, we must also consider just who he is accusing. Yes, at least one individual who is being subjected to church discipline for alt-rightism is common knowledge at this point (and I encourage you to consider his side of the story), but that’s not what I mean. The open question is who else falls under his condemnation made in the name of Jesus.

As Harrison writes, “These ‘alt-right’ individuals were at the genesis of a recent controversy surrounding essays accompanying a new publication of Luther’s Large Catechism.” But he also writes, “I am not speaking about the individuals who may have expressed theological concerns about the essays published alongside the Catechism. I’m talking about a small number of men who based their opposition upon racist and supremacist ideologies. The former we welcome. The latter we condemn.” So who is who in these two groups?

Part of the problem is the aforementioned nebulous nature of the accusation. “Alt-right” can mean a lot of different things. But then, “genesis” can mean a lot of things too. The true genesis of the controversy is the theologians who included false doctrines in their essays and the editors who invited false teachers to write for it.  Clearly that’s not what Harrison means, however, since he blessed the individuals and the project in toto.

So what then does he really mean by the beginning? There were concerns raised privately by pastors before it was even published. Was that the genesis of the controversy? Do they stand condemned? Or was the young man who most widely publicized some of the most egregious inclusions the genesis? My own commentary was pretty close behind, so do I get included as the beginning or was I too late to the party to be condemned?

And let me just take the opportunity to point out that when President Harrison quotes Luther’s Small Catechism as part of his grounds for excommunication (“hating, despising, or slandering other groups of people (prejudice, racism, and so forth)”)  he is quoting a recent (and dubious) addition that was not present in the edition I  was catechized with. It’s a very clear example of why Lutherans must be vigilant indeed about what gets added alongside our Catechisms. We therefore ought to be grateful to everyone who raised the alarm over the additions in the Large Catechism and its application of critical theory to our Confessions–regardless of any supposed motivations.

What’s more, Harrison’s two groups–the “genesis” and the “concerned”–are hardly mutually exclusive. I’ve certainly expressed theological concerns about those essays. But as I said, I did so early on and could plausibly be labeled “alt-right.” Do I therefore stand condemned here? Or is my critique welcomed? I’d wager there are many faithful critics of the new Large Catechism out there asking themselves the same question. When we’re just tossing about eternal damnation here, it might behoove us to be clearer and define our terms better.

But then, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility that this ambiguity is precisely the point. Inasmuch as we ask ourselves now whether we are targets for excommunication, we will be asking the same question before we speak out next time Synod publicly embraces false teaching. If a pastor acts like Luther did and publicly stands against the official errors of his day, will Synod come for his pulpit? If a layperson talks about public teaching on social media, will he be getting a call from his elders if he gets too many views? Whatever the letter says about welcoming theological concerns, the clear and objective effect is to place a Sword of Damocles over the necks of any would-be critics.

Who’s Next?

That threat-point is something every Lutheran needs to take very very seriously today. Just as the meaningless labels used by Harrison make his current set of targets ambiguous, they also make it easier to move on to others. The first of the excommunicated are the easiest marks. They hold very extreme positions; they are very blunt about doing so; and they have triggered many people. It’s tempting to simply write them off as outliers because in many ways, they are.

But the labels used by Harrison to justify excommunication are not outliers. In America, they are being applied ever more carelessly and liberally every day. Is it easy to call the guy who opposes interracial marriage a “racist“? Sure. But how often have you been called a racist by a liberal media, by strangers on Twitter, or by real-life acquaintances over entirely innocuous matters? Like it or not, that is it’s own cottage industry now. And make no mistake: there are already Lutheran men at the heart of this controversy with the president’s ear who openly call people racist even for trying to be color-blind, the gold standard for every Boomer. There are groups like Lutherans for Racial Justice already trying to push Critical Race Theory in the Synod. Do you really think this will stop with the easiest targets?

Lutherans have a reputation for being behind the times, but surely cancel culture has been around long enough for us to be aware of how it works. Surely we have seen wokeism consume enough institutions by now to recognize it when it starts happening to our own. This danger is already inside our walls. Do you really think it won’t intrude into your congregation or your home as well if you just ignore it now? Do you think they won’t teach your children to fear fake sins to advance their activism? Do you think they won’t condemn you if you do your job and interfere those efforts?

President Harrison’s letter is exactly what an ideological purge looks like in its early adolescence. But the stakes are far higher than the mass graves filled by cultural revolutions of the past. The weapon that has been put into play is not the barrel of a gun, but separation from the life-giving Word and Sacrament of Jesus Christ. The battleground which may be reduced to ash is the rarest of church bodies–one where God’s Word has long been taught in its purity and the Sacraments administered properly. And if we simply accept the false-teachings among us, we face nothing less than the removal of our lamp-stand.

This Is Not The End

I have been a member of the LCMS my entire life. I was baptized, taught, and communed in her congregations. I was educated in her grade schools and seminaries. I want the same for my children. If there were nothing worth fighting for here, then Satan would not be attacking us like this. And that is why we ought to continue to publicly object to these travesties.

I do not know what the future holds for our Synod. I do know that God will not abandon his faithful. The Word of God which President Harrison misused in his letter does not return void:

“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:31–39).

Posted in Lutheranism, Politics, The Modern Church, Theology | 22 Comments

The Last Confession?

Posted on February 7, 2023 by Matt

As a child, I never really “got” the Nicene Creed. It was basically just the Apostles Creed, but it took a million hundred hours longer to recite on Communion Sundays. And the second article was particularly egregious. How many different times does it have to say Jesus is God before finally moving on to “born of the virgin Mary” and so forth?

Naturally, that was just the attitude of a child who took basically every blessing for granted. But as an adult, one of my favorite classes in Seminary was Church History in which I was taught the story behind this creed. Of course, on one hand you have the orthodox Christians who understood the Trinity. On the other hand, you have the Arians, who taught that the Son was a subordinate deity created by the Father. That much, at least, I learned before seminary.

But what was most interesting to me was the third party–whom my professor called the Eusebians after the Nicomedian bishop who sheltered Arius (after he was first deposed but before his heresy became a Church-wide controversy.) Eusebius knew Arius as an opponent of modalism–the previous widespread heresy–which asserted that the Son and the Father are the same Person appearing in different forms. Well, the Arian heresy that posited two wholly distinct gods was certainly opposed to modalism. It doesn’t seem that Eusebius really embraced the full Arian program, but he did judge the matter according to the last controversy instead of the current one. It was more important that Arius was boldly anti-modalist than any allegations of error that could be written off as mere poor phrasing or overzealous rhetoric.

This misjudgment was facilitated by the fact that the Arians used slippery language to avoid directly stating that the Son was a lesser creation. They worked hard to give the Church’s useful idiots plausible deniability. That’s precisely why the Nicene Creed labors the point about the deity of the Son. The Arians were willing to accept “God of God” and “very God of very God” so long as the Son remained a true god created by God the Father. They were willing to accept “begotten before all worlds” so long as that just made the Son the first of the Father’s creations. They were willing to accept “begotten not made” language so long as the Father brought the Son into existence in time.

But what they couldn’t accept was “being of one substance (homoousias) with the father.” Homoousias was a word that’s not even from the Bible but nevertheless rightly describes what the Bible says about the Father and the Son. And the faithful Christians at Nicea used it precisely because the Arians couldn’t accept it. As odd as it may seem to modern ears, the purpose of our Creeds isn’t so much to unite the Church as it is to divide false teachers from her.

And the divisive nature of Nicea made it a very controversial decision. The conflict over Arianism raged for decades afterwards, with the Eusebians being far more willing to tolerate Arius than “divisive” rabble-rousers like Athanasius, the foremost Trinitarian bishop who was exiled multiple times over his refusals to make peace with heresy. For a time, it even seemed that Arianism would actually prevail.

Interestingly, it was precisely the Arians’ success that became their undoing. Their rapid progress towards toleration emboldened them, and they soon began to discard their slippery language. Rather than simply rejecting “same substance”, they began to assert that the Father and Son were of dissimilar substances. It became clear even to the Eusebians that what Athanasius had been railing against for decades wasn’t just a matter of poor phrasing or an innocent misunderstanding. They realized that the Arians were, in fact, effectively teaching polytheism. It was the Council of Constantinople that finally settled the matter using Nicea’s language in the 2nd article.

So the Nicene Creed was a hard-fought victory for the Christian Church–one which greatly benefits us whether we realize it or not. But a battle was necessary for that victory. Prior statements of faith like the Apostle’s Creed didn’t address Arianism specifically enough for the Eusebians who either couldn’t or wouldn’t discern the errors. (Yes, the official Apostle’s Creed was a later development, but there were many prototypical versions around prior to Nicea.) The Bible itself clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is truly God, and Athanasius worked hard to catalogue and promulgate just about every way that it does so. Nevertheless, a brief summary in an official creed proved an invaluable tool because most people don’t respond to theological controversy by doing a deep dive into Scripture.

Nevertheless, the Nicene Creed didn’t answer every potential heresy any more than the Apostle’s Creed did. On Trinity Sunday, we traditionally read the Athanasian Creed, which is even longer and even more repetitive because it addresses a number of Christological and Trinitarian heresies that emerged after Arianism. The Athanasian creed aspires to be completionist regarding the two natures of Christ and the three Persons of the Godhead in order to separate those errors from the Church.

But the Athanasian Creed wasn’t the last confession either. When the controversies of the Reformation came around, they centered on ecclesial and soteriological issues which the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds had no occasion to address. Once again, Christians needed clear exposition of the Biblical teachings at issue, so the Lutherans needed to pen the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord, etc. (Here, of course, my non-Lutheran readers will look to their own councils and confessions coming out of that period. The absence of truly ecumenical creeds after the Great Schism is a tragedy. That said, the Augsburg Confession should be an ecumenical creed.) And as with Nicea, those confessions were highly controversial and divisive precisely because they delineated truth from long-held errors in the medieval Church.

When observing such a pattern, it’s hard to credit the notion that the Book of Concord was  finally the last confession we’ll ever need. Until Christ returns, we will always need new confessions because Satan will always be sowing new heresies among us.

The Church is now beset by a host of strange new errors that our ancestors in the faith had no real need to directly and decisively address. Instead of the nature of God or of the Church or of salvation, today’s errors assault the nature of creation. Satan has tricked us into abandoning the Christian understanding of man & woman, and so we descend into sexual and social anarchy. He has tricked us into dismissing the nature of family, and so we hate children and abandon our nations for the sake of strangers. He has tricked us into disregarding providence and creation in favor of a mythology that teaches us the universe is random and nihilistic. Our confessions may not directly address gay marriage, critical race theory, bottom surgery, or women’s ordination (though they address all of them indirectly), but that is only because the Devil is attacking different targets than he did 500 years ago.

And yet, I hear many Lutherans dismissing the current controversies that plague the Church because our Confessions don’t really address them. The Large Cataclysm was only the most recent example of this. By a combination of malice or incompetance, it contains many of these specific false teachings sown by the Spirit of the Age. Nevertheless, many Christians are unable to even discern those errors, and countless more think the entire matter is beneath their notice. When faithful Christians objected, we were opposed not only by the false teachers, but also by our new Eusebians who will happily tolerate heretics just to get along. They will fight the old and comfortable wars willingly enough, but they neglect their duties in the current one.

Christians need to dig in to fight another protracted battle for the Faith. Simply quoting those who came before us will not be sufficient for the task. Rather, we will need to truly understand & embrace the heritage of our ancestors in the Faith so that we may once again use it to creatively divide truth from falsehood. That is ultimately how we will place ourselves and our culture under the judgement of God’s clear Word rather than trying to make God’s Word adapt to our wicked culture.

In doing so, we will need to learn the lessons of the past.

First, don’t fear being divisive. If we do not divide truth from error in our theology and our institutions, we will have failed. This will cause a lot of unrest and hurt feelings. It will inevitably cause some people to leave. But you need only look at the world around you and at the fate of those who follow false teachers away from Christ to understand that there is much more at stake than unrest and hurt feelings. It is always the false teachers that are at fault over division. Separating the Arians from the Church was a victory. The same will be true for today’s false teachers.

Second, don’t be impatient in forcing good changes. During the Reformation, there were many men who, upon learning the extent of the errors with which they were faced, easily forgot the needs of the people who were still trapped in those errors. The vast majority of men and women in our own pews are likewise trapped. For example, they falsely believe that fake sins like racism and sexism are truly abominable. Their consciences have been malformed in this regard, but they remain consciences. As Luther famously noted, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. They will need to be taught repeatedly that “sexism” is a good thing required by God before they can safely begin hindering women from teaching and having authority over men. They will need to be taught repeatedly that “racism” isn’t sinful before they can safely stop being ashamed of their heritage. Now, this doesn’t mean we attack our radicals when the boldness they possess is already in such short supply. It does mean that we direct our zealous youth to treat our congregations as true brothers and sisters in the faith that we must patiently guide in the right direction one step at a time.

Third, don’t expect it to be over in a day. When we read history, we naturally focus on the most interesting events. The side-effect is that we often overlook the time-scales involved between those events. Athanasius spent most of his life fighting against the Arians. He was a secretary in his 20’s at the first Council of Nicea where the anti-Arian language we’re used to was adopted. But the Council of Constantinople was almost 60 years later–almost a decade after Athanasius’ own death. In the meantime, he was exiled 5 times by multiple emperors (I believe over a third of his time as Bishop of Alexandria was spent in exile.) It’s easy to get caught up in the current victories and current defeats–treating each one as though it either ended the war or ended the world–but we can’t afford to be so impatient. Conflicts this large take place over a very long time. Those of us called to fight against today’s false teaching will therefore need to get used to the idea of fighting over the long haul and teaching our sons to do the same. This will be a marathon, not a sprint.

Lastly, don’t fear standing alone. God made men to be social creatures–we’re intended to influence one another. Naturally, being the one man standing up and telling the rest that they are wrong is a daunting proposition. And yet, when opposing worldly errors being imposed on the church, there’s no way out of that. When false teaching is the norm, true teaching will always stand out like a sore thumb and make everyone uncomfortable. But God has given the Church no shortage of men who did precisely that. Whether Elijah, Athanasius, Luther, or a multitude of others, we ought to know what standing against the world looks like by now. The sure and certain Word of God is a foundation that will outlast anything the false teachers are standing on. And when one does stand alone upon it, he often finds that God hasn’t left him as alone as he had assumed.

In the early 20th Century, people naively referred to World War I as “the war to end all wars.” Many actually thought mankind had finally gotten all that violence out of our system and could look forward to peace. The rest of the 20th Century brutally laid that notion to rest. It’s easy for Christians to make the same mistake and be tempted by the prospect of a final, perfect peace in this life. But we don’t get that luxury until the final trumpet sounds. Sometimes, Christians don’t even get the luxury of a temporary peace. We don’t get to choose the circumstances into which God has placed us; we only get to choose whether to take up our crosses and follow Him.

So it is today. The fact that the Book of Concord and the ecumenical creeds do not directly repudiate our current false teachers only means that we will have to take up that task ourselves, just as the authors of those confessions did before us. And we need not despair of that task just because Synod has chosen to resume its distribution of the Annotated Large Catechism without any changes. President Harrison’s one-sided condemnation of those who objected will surely embolden today’s heretics just like the Arians centuries ago. And just like the Arians, they will slowly start saying the quiet part out loud regarding their false teachings.

Lutherans need to be ready to use that–to continuously show it to our Eusebians and place it under the condemnation of Holy Scripture. And if our current set of confessions don’t speak to issues of Biblical anthropology, then perhaps the time is coming when we’ll need to change that. It’s not going to be easy or pleasant, but it’s the work we have been given. There’s nothing for it but to gird our loins and get to it.

Posted in Lutheranism, Musings, The Modern Church, Theology, Tradition | 3 Comments