If an established national church cannot ultimately oppose the culture of her nation or defy the government of which it is by essence a part, is it possible for their to be an established national church at all or is this an oxymoron? In every partnership there is a dominant partner and for the established national church, the politics, culture, and government will always be those dominant partners -- influencing the Gospel more than the Gospel influences them over time. It was for this reason, in part, that the United States chose to forego the example of a national church. Surely it is difficult enough to forego the Zeitgeist as an independent institution without being encumbered with political and cultural ties that make resisting that Zeitgeist almost impossible. While some may think that by skipping an establishment church we have also bypassed the conundrum, it does not quite appear to be so.
Even disestablished churches and those never established find themselves under duress when the values of the times and the opinions of the people grow increasingly apart from the Scriptures. In America, it can easily be shown that the mainline churches as well as many other groups have found it impossible or tiring to resist the views of the dominant class and culture. For us, as in England, this is the same group -- urban progressives. Even evangelicals in America have capitulated along side their mainline cousins and have surrendered many of their positions to those in favor in the moment. It is not just in the arena of sex and gender but in a hose of other positions, including climate change, racism, equity, and diversity, that the churches here tend to step in line with the established Church of England in promoting the opinion du jour on these issues.
In this respect, it makes it harder than ever to be a national church, established or not. Look at the disparities between governments and politics and culture in the various regions and states of the US. What you can do in Tennessee or Texas you cannot do in New York or Illinois or California. It is not rocket science but simple pragmatic common sense. So what does that mean? How do we function as a national church body in a nation in which regions or states have different rules and environments for how we live and confess and serve? The days of a strong national identity may be waning for a variety of reasons but for the Missouri Synod it has never been quite about jurisdiction than about confession. We may not be a national established church but we have enjoyed a history of clear and courageous confessional witness. Though, to be sure, even events like the Civil War and slavery created a hint of the conflict we have now in trying to decide which positions of culture and government we can live with and which we cannot. Could it be that we will end up functioning almost exclusively as a congregational church and the national identity will continue to weaken? Will we find the cost of standing apart too great to retain this confessional witness? Will end up a confederation of diverse and distinct regional identities? These are some of the questions on my mind and I hope we are all thinking about them. The decision by one of our universities to go it alone could very well be accompanied by a district deciding to become its own identity. Would we, could we, or should we oppose the disintegration of the Missouri franchise? What do you think?
2 comments:
"The decision by one of our universities to go it alone could very well be accompanied by a district deciding to become its own identity."
It is already becoming that. The District offices control the conduits for most of the congregational contributions that get to the Synod. The Council of Presidents has been gaining more power in the Synod (except for handling foreign missions). A DP was on the CTX Board of Regents that decided to break away from he Synod. If the President tries to bring ecclesiastical charges against a DP, it is the COP Chairman who handles the case, not the Synod's first Vice-President or anyone else in the Praesidium.
"Though, to be sure, even events like the Civil War and slavery created a hint of the conflict we have now in trying to decide which positions of culture and government we can live with and which we cannot."
Let's not forget the Missouri Synod's opposition to woman suffrage in the first two decades of the 20th century that quickly ceased after the 19th amendment was passed. That eventually led to the Missouri Synod allowing women voters, women delegates to Synod and District conventions, women lectors, and even women congregational presidents. Now, a century later, this first sign of wokeness has metasticized into D.I.E. wokeness infecting the (remaining) Concordias and most recently a book prepared by the CTCR. Those Lutherans who first warned about these recent problems have been banned either from their teaching position or from the Lord's Supper.
An attempt to correct the CUS wokeness through a restructuring overture approved by the BOD has been potentially derailed by a late overture (L2-27, > 25 pages) cobbled together by the Concordia presidents and the COP. With only a little over a month and a half before the convention, the L2-27 mantra for convention delegates seems to be, "You have to pass the resolution so that you can find out what is in it."
Post a Comment