A strange paradox. . .

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.  Or something like that was said by Barry Goldwater.  It did not matter since LBJ showed a mushroom cloud with the express intention of saying it was either him or nuclear holocaust.  In the end it was enough to push the Texan to a mighty big victory and to tarnish the reputation of an otherwise honorable opponent.  I wonder if they were really as far apart as the commercial suggested.  In the end, the party that nominated Johnson went on to see Chicago riots and the landslide shift to the other side four years down the road.  It is a strange paradox when you set it up so that your friends are not friendly enough and your enemies are not who you think them to be.  Such is the case in religious politics as well.

Rome recently saw the SSPX, a traditionalist group loosely on the fringes of Rome, defy the papal threat and ordain their own bishops.  I get it.  They spat in the face of the pope, for Pete's sake.  That is how it appears, anyway.  But is it exactly that?  Watch the videos posted of the ordination of their bishops in Switzerland and the ordination of a bishop in Laredo, Texas, and it is not so clear.  The trad group is pious and reverent and churchly while the Roman group sounds almost Protestant casual doing the same thing -- a more liturgical version to be sure but not exactly high church either.  The dispute with the SSPX seems to fall around the Council nobody seems to agree on what it said or means -- Vatican II.  Some, like Benedict XVI and John Paul II, insist that Vatican II did nothing but a new coat of paint on the old church and nothing of substance in doctrine or practice really changed.  But that is certainly at odds with the liturgical reforms of Paul VI which were not quite Vatican II but have claimed the label.  The SSPX does not like some of what the Council said and little of what Paul VI promulgated.  On this, a host of folks uneasily within Rome seem to agree.

Rome has also seen others who seem to fit within the fold turn the Mass into a circus, resist every attempt at reverence, and make the little visit with God into a homey little sit down.  On top of that there are official voices clamoring for the ordination of women, for a voice and vote on the things of importance, and for a friendlier view to the LGBTQ+ community.  It is not quite important that they do not seem to be going anywhere to change Rome but the fact is that they get to flaunt their outrageous views seemingly without recrimination while Pope Francis tried to evict a conservative cardinal from his Roman apartments for daring to question him through official channels.  It certainly does seem that to err on the conservative side is more cause for Vatican complaint or discipline than to go the other direction. Does that mean that the liberal edge is more friendly with Rome than the more conservative, traditional side?  What a paradox?  Your friends are more those who stretch the limits of faith and practice within the boundaries than those who try to rein in the extremes?  Really?  Not to mention the fact that the previous Pope ceded control over who is ordained to the Chinese communists and the new one seems comfortable with that.  So four bishops from the conservative side are a bigger outrage than how many from the Chinese government?

Before you shrug your shoulders and suggest this is a Roman problem, the same thing exists in Lutheranism and in Missouri.  There seems to be plenty of latitude given to those who stretch the borders of faith and practice one way but not so much the other way.  If the people like a pastor who is not living within the boundaries of confessional Lutheran faith and practice, it seems okay to let him be.  But a conservative pastor who tries to bring the folk back into the fold is claimed to be rigid or overbearing and handed a resignation letter to sign.  Yes, I know, there are many nuances to these cases but it is no wonder sometimes it is hard to figure out who your friend and who is not anymore.  All of this attests to the fact that the most dangerous thing in any church body is someone who is pious and faithful on the conservative side of things.  Across Lutheranism it is the same.  Liberals get away with denying just about everything and ignoring our very Confession while conservatives who hold the line are seen as loving rules more than people and more like a law-giving Moses than a grace-giving Jesus.  But is it always that simple?  Are the folks more dangerous to the health and life of the Church more those who conserve or those who innovate?  We are still a church body intimidated by large parishes that seem more evangelical than Lutheran while fearful of the small parish that keeps the tradition without apology.

We all seem to love the muddy moderate middle more than anything else.  Liturgical but not too liturgical, conservative but not too conservative, and confessional but not too confessional.   We Lutherans know this only too well but apparently we are not alone.  Rome and the Episcopals would rather sell a building once used for Christian worship to a Muslim group than to a conservative one.  That statement can be shown truthful with myriad examples.  Even the ELCA was guilty of that.  Who are the friends of orthodox Christianity?  Those who hold to the creeds, councils, confessions and liturgy of the Church or those who like to live on the wild side?  The answer seems obvious but, depending upon who you talk to, it is not.  Leo will excommunicate the SSPX principals for their action but warn those who flaunt Roman teaching and practice on the other side.  Even a certain Tucho seems to exemplify this desire to live on the edge while talking tough with the rad trads.  It is not always different even among those who claim to abhor popes (like Missouri).  It is a strange paradox, indeed, that we treat those who skirt the left boundary different than those who do the same to the right.