Warning... more pope watching

As I have said, without a horse in this race it is mere curiosity for me but I cannot help it.  Amid the hopes that Leo would be more like Benedict, the initial signs are iffy.  Apart from everything else, you judge presidents by who they surround themselves with and who they appoint.  The same could be said of the pope.  This is what is concerning.  He has readily accepted the pro forma resignation of conservative bishops and archbishops (Dolan and Aquila as examples) and as of yet has not accepted earlier resignations of notable (notorious?) liberals (Cupich is enough said).  His appointments remain to be seen but in bishops as in the Vatican, there is no distinct or noticeable shift from the kind of men Francis appointed.  In fact, rather than choosing his own team, Pope Leo confirmed thirty of the thirty-one dicastery members chosen by Pope Francis.  The only one he did not confirm was beyond the age of eligibility or she would probably have been confirmed as well.  Finally, his slowness to replace the Curia leaders of dicasteries and other offices had left those who were allies of Francis with their positions of power and influence (think here Fernandez and Roche).  What do you make of all of this?

At best, he seems to be sending mixed signals with the visual of vestments and the restoration of some traditions that Francis ignored or abrogated standing next to the stroke of the pen on who he makes leaders of the Roman Catholic Church.  At worst, the visual is merely a smokescreen for the substantive choice to be an extension of Francis' disastrous papacy.  He has revived the consultation and council of the cardinals at what would seem to be a pace of twice a year but most of those cardinals were appointed by Francis and owe him their red hat if not their theological, liturgical, and philosophical allegiance.  For those who look around our own households of faith with fear and trembling, all of this leaves a question mark where Rome needs at least a period or even an exclamation mark.  It could be worse for us.  We could have the same kind of vacillating signals from our own leadership in the LCMS.  While there are always potshots taken at leaders from the galleries, we have less to wring our hands over than Rome does right now and it is just the beginning of what might be a generation or so of leadership from the guy in white.  If I were Roman Catholic, I would be worried.

Leo seems to ignore some of the most radical things liberals say.  Think here about Cardinal Cupich who ought to be minding the Chicago shop but seems hellbent upon making his stamp extend well beyond the Windy City.  He had the gall to say that the Latin Mass a spectacle that must be suppressed.  Imagine somebody in the LCMS saying the same thing about Divine Service 3?  Granted our DS3 has had less than a hundred and fifty years of usage but it has been deemed venerable and has never been put out to pasture.  Cupich wants to turn the Church's back on something that served Rome for over 400 years and to say it is so bad it cannot be allowed any longer.  No matter what you think about the Latin Mass, this has the net effect of disowning your own history.  We Lutherans are a bit like Rome.  We seldom admit our mistakes and add cars on the train of our traditions that seem sometimes to weigh down the engine of our churches.  Rome does that in spades.  But not Cupich.  It was bad then and it is bad now and it must be gotten rid of for the health of Rome.  Gosh.  You might think somebody in the Vatican might have made a phone call to tell Cupich to deal with the faithful who are his charge and to leave this kind of thing to those to whom jurisdiction is given.  This is but one example of something that seems, without Leo demurring, to cast gasoline on the fires burning in Rome.  Why does Leo not say or do something for the sake of the Roman Catholic Church?

I guess what I am saying is this.  If people inside or outside of Rome (like me) were expecting this pope to repair what damage has been done over the last decade or so, they will have to wait longer. Leo is not doing much to suggest that his vision for Rome is all that much different than Francis' -- except in style. 

You ole fuddy-duddy. . .

For most of my life I have instinctively associated orthodoxy and order with boring.  In my college and seminary years, I looked at a parade of District Presidents wearing loud sports jackets and ties or leisure suits and thought I wanted to be anything but them.  It was no wonder I had sympathy for John Tietjen because he looked the part in clericals and black suit.  When my own vicarage and placement services took place, I was relieved that I was going where the DP was sporting a beard and clerical collar in a conservative dark grey three piece suit.  Visuals do not always tell you everything but they do tell you something and it is hard to jettison the impression first given by what you see.  

It might be for this reason that I hardly enter a Wal-Mart anymore.  The infamous People of Wal-Mart web pages showing how ill-dressed or undressed shoppers are says it all.  Or fly somewhere and see how people dress for air travel -- when I fly I dress up and not down!  The same could be said for a concert in which the ticket price alone might imply something a more formal rather than casual.  Just last month my wife and I had to change our path in a store because they young man ahead of us (not in a Wal-Mart) was wearing sleep pants, a bathrobe, and slippers.  Really?  I guess I have become the fuddy-duddy that I rebelled against in youth.  I feel the same way when I find pastors who wear what might be comfortable or easy to put on (from the chair where you dumped it yesterday) but I find it hard to take them seriously in their calling.  If they show up on Sunday morning with vestments of khakis or board shorts or t-shirt or polo, I am immediately put off.  It seems to me that they are rebelling against their vocation in some childish and culturally relevant way that is both arrogant and rude.  

I fear that this kind of thing affects a great deal in the Church.  Our theology is not exciting but boring.  Our morality flaunts duty more than liberty or indulgence.  We are in a very unfavorable position against the world.  The world offers us sexy, cool, vital, vibrant, indulgent, forward-looking, be what you are, and, most of all, have fun in everything.  In comparison the Church seems rather dull, bland, boring, and very uncool.  They say that if you are not a liberal when you are young and a conservative when you mature, you are simply an idiot or a fool.  Maybe youth instinctively rebels against the tradition and traditional theology, morality, and liturgy.  I don't know.  But I do know that in choosing the fun over everything else, the world has not chosen well or anything worth having.  

Youth left me with many things and regrets are also among the memories.  I hope it is true for many.  My sixth grade teacher told me most of all in life to be true to myself.  Which self?  The selfish, rebellious, lustful, fool who does not care about consequences or the mature self that lives in bondage to them or the Christian self who has learned to delight in the will and Word and order of the Lord?  The real radical is not the one who indulges in a Rumspringa vision of life that cares for nothing except the moment and puts off the serious for a time to be announced later.  No, the real radical is the mature self, formed and shaped by the Spirit of God, to become in time the person who has been given eternity.  I am encouraged that some of those coming out of their youthful rebellion are awakening to this truth and showing up in conservative, orthodox, and traditional parishes offering orthodox and traditional liturgy.  It is my hope that this is where the future is headed and not simply a momentary trend.

We might hasten this a bit if we got out of our system the idea that youth ministry should be fun to counter the boring and bland stuff that happens in worship and Bible study.  We might initiate this kind of maturity by refusing the idea that worship is a stage, that the people in the chancel are actors, that the script is made up, and that the goal is entertainment.  We might encourage a more real future by offering our kids a more real present in which the symbols and ceremonies come not from preference or for the sake of the experience but because the presence of God is as real as God, the truth is not subject to individual decision or definition, and the purpose of God is to set us from from the fake freedom that corrupts and kills.  The most radical thing in our world is not going with the flow of culture or fad but resisting the current because God has entered our time to rescue us from our sins, restore our lives in holiness, and direct us to the eternal future which we taste now in the mystery of bread and wine.  Looking back, I can thank a few profs along the way who taught me this radical idea.  

The Claim of Catholicity. . .

For as long as I can remember, the most comfortable view of the Reformation from those who claim to be its heirs seems to claim the most radical perspective for the events and figures of the 16th century.  It is as if the only way we could come to terms with it all is to presume that Luther and his contemporaries were just itching to cast off every constraint of tradition, orthodoxy, and catholicity in favor of an extreme Biblicism that does not care about history or even the apostles.  I understand the insistence that the Church had suffered much before the Reformation and that this movement was finding its way out of the fog.  What Lutherans are comfortable with today, however, is not an accurate or faithful description of the attitude of those actually fought for that Reformation.

The narrative I got was that it was all about and, almost exclusively so, concerning justification.  Nowhere in my education or training was I appraised of the idea that the Reformation was about catholicity.  That idea came unofficially from teachers and mentors outside the classroom.  At the heart of the Reformation, however, is not simply or solely the issue of justification but even more so the question of whose claim to catholicity was genuine.  Justification was part of this and not unrelated to it.  This is certainly the contention of the Augsburg Confession (Conclusion of Part One).  Catholicity was and remains the main cause of the Reformation.  If their concern for justification was Biblical, it must be catholic.  If it is catholic, it must be Biblical.  That is the perspective of the Lutheran reformers.

Over the course of a few decades or so there has been an explosion of authors and works on just this topic -- the Reformation as a conflict over who deserved to be called catholic.  Some are well known tomes from the best seller lists of a few years ago -- from the likes of Steven Ozment, Scott Henrix, and Diarmaid MacCulloch.  Others are renewed interest in other authors and works from the likes of Heiko Oberman, Martin Brecht, and, before that, Jaroslav Pelikan.  Gone is the hero worship style of biography once practiced within and outside of Lutheranism and in its place are serious reviews of the claim of catholicity.  The problem is that I am not so sure that those who call themselves Lutheran are as comfortable with this renewed interest in catholicity.  Too many Lutherans are too comfortable with the idea that Lutherans are radicals with the intent upon wholesale renovation of the Church.  Despite Luther's over the top rhetoric, his practice was somewhat more careful and conservative.

So the problem before us as Lutherans is which form of Lutheranism is authentic -- the one that loves to live on the radical fringe of Christianity and embrace the excesses of culture or the one that tolerates things liturgical but prefers an Amish style spirituality or the one that fully intends to be catholic in doctrine and practice.  The ELCA along with European Lutherans seem to have laid serious claim to the liberal fringe.  The evangelical style Lutherans who disdain liturgy, ceremony, and sacramental piety seem to live in various Lutheran denominations -- my own included.  The catholic style Lutherans are often characterized as loving worship more than the Gospel itself but they maintain the tie between doctrine and practice.  I wish I could say that this has been resolved but it is still being fought out.  The out and out worship wars might have been tamed down a bit but the battleground remains.  The choice of some Lutherans to engage the culture on matters of sexual desire, gender identity, marriage, family, children, climate, etc., is not yet finished as they continue to follow where the culture wars lead.  The whole idea of simple is better than anything too elaborate continues to be held as a balance against those who they feel have gone too far.  At some point, however, we will have to decide which Reformation is not only the real one but the one of which we claim to be heirs.  

Whatever happened to Sweden?

When the electorate of Brandenburg was torn apart by a quarrel between the Lutherans and Roman Catholics, King of Sweden Gustavus Adolphus came to their aid.  He launched an invasion of northern Germany and Pomerania in June 1630, marking the Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War. He  consolidated the Lutheran position in the north and turned the tide when the Lutherans were losing to the Holy Roman Empire and its Roman Catholic allies.  His army marched to victory singing the great Lutheran chorales.  What happened to that Swedish Lutheran Church?

Today, the Church of Sweden is a Lutheran joke.  It was perhaps the first to ordain women and its clergy are now between 50-60% female.  It was a largely secular agency of the government for too long and while the buildings were preserved, the faith decayed.  It was overcome with political ideology.  An example of this was revealed when Sweden’s biggest morning paper, DN, in May 2025, published an interview with one female priest who admitted that she wasn’t really that interested in Jesus but originally went to church and communion to meet other lesbian girls. In 2013, a female archbishop was elected primarily on the basis that she was a woman, would be the first female archbishop, and this was a witness against a patriarchal and misogynistic history and culture that preceded her. 

The buildings have been preserved but at the cost of the faith.  Such was the cost of the deal between church and state in which the state had power over what was believed and how it was practiced.  I am half Swedish and it is with great sadness that I acknowledge the loss of this history and identity for what was once a vibrant Christian stronghold.  Lord knows that the population of the Mid-West states of the US was filled with Swedes who brought their faith with them to America.  Apparently, they did not leave much of it back for those who stayed at home.  Now Sweden is a rapidly aging country with an ever increasing Muslim immigrant population that is radically changing the shape of the nation and its culture.  In fact, it is hard to call the Sweden of today Lutheran in any real sense of the word. 

A number of years ago my home town celebrated an anniversary which focused on their Swedish past.  When a number of Swedish dancers were brought in as part of that celebration, my mother invited them to her home to feast upon the treasured foods of their Swedish past.  From pickled herring to lutefisk to Lingonberries, and so much more, she cooked and served them what she grew up eating.  They were not impressed and called the meal "museum food," part of their past but not what they wanted now.  Perhaps that is also the state of affairs in the Lutheran Church of Sweden today.  It is a museum church, preserving a semblance of their history and past but without the faith and confidence in Scripture or the Augsburg Confession today.  It is sad to me and perhaps a poignant reminder of where everyone of us will end up unless we resist the temptation to surrender doctrine to political ideology.  Gustavus Adolphus must be turning over in his grave.

Stupidly true. . .

You may have heard about the dust up at Notre Dame over the appointment of a professor who is an avowed pro-abortion and who makes the ludicrous claim that abortion is an example of white supremacy.  She would be laughable if it were not for the fact that this university which seeks to be the world's premier Roman Catholic school has hired her and given her a comfortable place and a platform to offend the very idea of that university being Roman Catholic.  Notre Dame is now hearing some loud push back from pro-life Roman Catholics on their faculty and among the student body because of this decision to appoint vocal abortion advocate Susan Ostermann to lead the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies at the Keough School of International Affairs. On the faculty, two scholars — Professors Robert Gimello and Diane Desierto — have resigned from the Liu Institute in recent days over Ostermann’s appointment.  Former Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins rebuked her pro-abortion views in 2022. According to Notre Dame, however, “Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the University’s Catholic mission. Notre Dame’s commitment to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage is unwavering.”

For weeks, University of Notre Dame leaders publicly insisted that the appointment of a pro-abortion-rights professor to head the Asian studies institute was final -- until it wasn't.  Apparently enough of a backlash arose to prevent the Jan. 8 appointment from being completed.  Which goes to show you that what is lacking in the hallowed halls of academia is not in the outrage of those whom they depend upon for moral and financial support.  What is telling, however, is that all of this would have gone ahead and a visible compromise with the schools doctrinal identity as a Roman Catholic institution would have been the acceptable cost they were willing to pay to play with the big boys in the secular land of university enchantment.  The question for all religious schools is why do they bother playing this dangerous game?

The US courts have assured religious schools that they can refuse to employ teachers whose views conflict with the religious teachings of their church.  For whatever reason, some churches think that they must hire those whose view conflict with their teachings but how stupidly true is this.   “I have long worked with scholars who hold diverse views on a multitude of issues, and I welcome the opportunity to continue doing so. While I hold my own convictions on complex social and legal issues, I want to be clear: my role as Liu Director is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda,” Ostermann said.  Yeah, right.  She will not bend in her advocacy of her pro-abortion position which belittles Rome's anti-abortion position as an example of patriarchal white supremacy and she will debate her point of view with those who disagree with her and Notre Dame will pay her to do so.  Again, how stupidly true is this story -- an example of how religious universities falsely presume they must operate.  Sadly, it is but one more instance of how doctrinal fidelity is sacrificed at the altar of diversity.  While I wish I could say this was a Roman Catholic problem, it is not.  We have our own problems in that regard.  In any case, the idea continues to exist that to be credible in our academic world, you must allow faculty to hold a wide range of viewpoints because this is the cost of high-quality academics and research.  The truth is that although you cannot control what your students might hold or espouse, you certainly can control who is teaching and what is being taught at a Christian school.