Why do Lutherans look over the fence. . .

There are probably many reasons why Lutherans are attracted to Rome.  Some of those have been unfairly and shamefully presented by critics as Lutherans who like fancy things.  Well, if that makes you feel better I suppose you have a right to your opinion.  From my perspective, there are many reasons why Lutherans are uncomfortable enough about being Lutheran to look over the fence to other churches (here meaning only those historic alternatives such as Rome or Constantinople).  None of them have to do with the taste for fancy things.

The first problem is the shrinking state of confessional Lutheranism in America.  Yes, I know that this is not quite the case across the world, Africa in particular, but looking around you in the States is a depressing thing to do.  On the one hand you have those who keep the name but have long ago ceased to represent anything close to Lutheran doctrine and teaching.  Even when their worship retains the forms, they have emptied the words of any real meaning.  On the other hand you have those Lutherans who believe that the true Lutheran church in America is probably only one or two congregations and they have their moments.  It is an ungenerous and unkind version of Lutheranism which delights in sarcasm and tearing down others.  In addition, you have those who are more comfortable with the version of Lutheranism they grew up with than the one Luther knew, the Confessions describe, and liturgical parishes practice.  Not to mention those who have seem to tolerate any kind of worship practice as long as a theoretical Lutheran identity is maintained in the imagination.  Missouri may be Lutheranism's last great hope in America and Europe but is anyone happy about this?  This says volumes about the state of things in Lutheranism and why some may be looking over the fence to see how green the grass is there.

The second problem is internal inconsistency.  Even among conservative and confessional Lutheran bodies such as Missouri, there is a real lack of consistency among Lutheran congregations and their practices.  It is especially tiring because we are a somewhat congregational church body with episcope and no formal episcopal officers.  Our ability to rein in the fringes is not only frustrating but nearly impossible.  The internet only makes this diversity, especially with respect to worship, more painful.  While Rome surely has much of the same thing, there are mechanisms in place for Rome to stop it when it wants to.  Nobody in Rome or anywhere else (except liberal Protestantism) seems to like Pope Francis but everyone knows he will not last and Rome is still the largest Christian tradition in the world.  I can see why some look to Rome even though when I look I find the same problems of Missouri only magnified by multiples that seem to dizzy the mind.

The third problem is antiquity.  No, I am not talking about Rome being around since St. Peter.  What I am talking about is how so many Lutherans are content to think that their tradition began in 1517 (or 1847) and the ease with which they write off what went before.  We sound like the Anabaptists who suddenly believe that when they came along God sighed with relief that finally somebody got Him right.  The issue here is that many Lutherans seem perfectly fine being a denomination built in opposition to things and content with its own institutional history (which is not, by the way, the Church of the Augsburg Confession).  I do not want to belong to a church that has an establishment date in the recent past or even 500 years ago.  I am intent upon confessing and being the one, holy catholic and apostolic church and faith.  But sometimes it is frustrating about how hard Lutherans argue the tiniest Lutheran point against another Lutheran without seeming to care about the early church fathers or the catholic tradition.  If that is what Lutheranism has become, it is no wonder why some are looking over the fence.  The problem is that even this is not neatly answered by Rome.  Indeed, the Lutheran position is that Rome is the innovator and the creator of novelty -- passing it all off as catholic when we are real catholics.  It does not help that Lutherans seem to be okay with not being real catholics.  So the historical character of Rome is both an attraction and maybe a bit of a problem.

The last problem is doctrine.  There is little doctrinal homogeneity within Christian traditions anymore.  Are there any real Calvinists left?  Is Rome really an umbrella for competing and conflicting theological traditions -- held together by the papacy alone?  Does it mean anything to be Lutheran?  Gone are the days when we knew and cared about what we believed.  Christianity across the spectrum has lapsed into a collection of feelings, desires, preferences, and likes that dominate over doctrine and truth.  Even Scripture is not an unassailable voice for truth -- not within Lutheranism as a whole nor within Rome (don't even ask about Protestantism).  I do not agree but it is easy to see how some view putting up with Rome's doctrinal problems no different than putting up with the diversity within their own Lutheran tradition.

So let us at least be honest.  There are real problems that are pushing people to look over the fence to see how green the grass is over there.  They are not shallow minded nor do they like pretty things.  They can be serious people who lament what once fine and noble theological traditions have become in our age.  You may not like it or agree with it but you should not castigate them unfairly or inaccurately.  In most cases they are serious people looking for a serious church home in a slightly better state of condition than the one they are in now.  I do not think Rome is an improvement but I get where they are coming from and so should you.  Click here to view the best of liturgical adaptation in Rome!