Israel wanted a king and was not happy that God had saddled them with something less than what they thought they deserved and everyone else had. We all know how that turned out. Can anyone really recite the list of those kings no one wants to remember? In Scripture it ends up being something like so and so went and did what was evil in God's sight and then slept with the fishes ancestors who had done the same. Boring and disappointing all at once. It surely did not keep them from claiming the Roman imposed version of a monarch as their own even though they hated the thought of it all. There is something about a king, after all. I guess that it is in our blood to want someone whom we think has the power to change everything and someone to blame for not changing it the way we want it. Give them cake became give them a king and make them regret it. The king or president ceased to be merely the highest authority within the structure of the social order to become instead the very embodiment of the sovereign State.
Rome has certainly evolved the papacy into a kingly sort of office. Papolatry had its roots far earlier than Vatican I but it has not been abandoned even as the mythology of democracy has also evolved. We may find the worship of the pope to be a thing baffling, strange and contradictory, but it is perfectly reasonable why Rome wants to turn the pope into a king. "Whatever the pope says because the pope says it.” It does not seem to matter who the pope is. It does not even matter when he contradicts other popes or even himself -- walking back one day what he say the day before. The papacy has become the ultra institution of Rome and nothing else seems to matter -- unless you are on the opposite side of the pope when suddenly you agree with all the critics. Rome does not want a pope but a ruling monarch both to blame and to sit in the place of God with wisdom and an all knowing soul -- eve without a guarantee he will always be right.
Lutherans are not far behind. Missouri is perhaps the most democratic of the governance forms of American Lutheranism yet we want a benevolent monarch as much as the next guy. Whether in clericals or a shirt and tie, expect our Synod President to move on a dime in pursuit of what we want and to be slow as molasses to stop what we wish continued. We blame him for everything that is wrong in Synod without acknowledging his role in making things right. We get a little testy when we think he has gone too far as well as when we believe he has not gone far enough. In short, we also want a king. We want a benevolent monarch who is nearly always right when we agree and willing to take back what we do not like or agree with. We expect him to honor the good institutions and correct the ones not so good, to know who to appoint where and who to can when they have done wrong but to do it in a proper pastoral way -- a humble monarch at least. We want a king whom we can predict and control and who looks good on camera as he benignly goes about our business. Like the Garden of Eden, we say we want freedom but blame King God I when things happen as He said they would but we were not listening. It is probably no different in any church which cares about things like doctrine and practice. We do not want a president or even a bishop but would like a king who acts decisively when we think it necessary and patiently when the spy glass is on us. Ride on King Jesus and those who minister in His name -- at least so far as He is riding where we want Him to go. It seldom seems that we are ready for any kind of cross bearing or suffering but we are perfectly willing to be the cause os some of that.
2 comments:
Although it is true that there were a few knuckleheads around who suggested George Washington be declared a king, there was no legitimate consensus among the most influential founders. But in colonial New York and elsewhere, there were more loyalists fighting for the English crown than patriots. Indeed, loyalists and patriots fought and killed one another throughout the war. After the war, many loyalists lost their property as a result of choosing the wrong side in the conflict. In many ways, the Revolution also had the earmarks of a civil war as well. Native American tribes were rooting for one side or the other. Also African American slaves were courted by the British with promises of freedom if they joined the loyalist cause. Native Americans and African American slaves had also aspired to a better life. Who could blame them? What a mess. History books often mischaracterize the truth. As a child in school during the elementary grades, we were fed the myth that the whole country was at first and last entirely united against the British monarchy. True, by the end of the Revolution, the patriot side was successful, and most everyone knew that rising from the bloodshed was a new nation. Some people were suspicious of the excesses of a monarchy, but a monarchy seemed to offer security. Yet, democracy can also be rife with conflicts as well. The best solution was a Representative Republic, hopefully, founded on Christian principles and ideals. Though the wishful utopian desires of our species never comes to fruition, a nation still needs to keep trying. In my view, that is the general but imperfect foundation of the American dream. But back to the idea of the King or President. There still must be a leader. But the leader must be guided by the laws and common goals and aspirations representative of the will of the people. But what if the will of the people is wrong? The problem is when corruption and power infect the leadership as well as the governed. Popes, Kings, Presidents, Dictators can misuse their power. When the leaders are no longer accountable, they become a power to themselves. If they provoke the governed, than resistance grows, sectarian violence erupts, and often for a time there is anarchy or mob rule. This pattern seems to persist throughout history. I do not think the office of the president of the LCMS relates to any abuses of authority, and we should dismiss this thought. No matter who leads a country or organization, or even a church, there will always be the grumblers and complainers, and resistance. The best leaders know this in advance, and if they are Godly men and women, they will just strive to guide the ship safely through, relying on the Lord to give them the wisdom to stay the course. Soli Deo Gloria
Pastoral Meanderings: "When Lutherans forget this and their own Confessions and end up sounding like Protestants, we betray our identity and our claim to be the catholic and apostolic church, keeping the faith in pure doctrine and right practice against those who would divide it up or choose sides (like Protestants and Rome)."
The protesting group (later referred to as "Protestants") at the 1529 Diet of Speyer were gathered to protest the Roman Catholic majority's decision to rescind the provision of toleration of the 1526 Diet of Speyer. These Protestants, made up mostly of Lutherans with some Zwinglian representatives, were not there to settle their theological differences, which continued to exist. Originally, the Protestant movement was more political, with any religious unity only in protesting the Roman suppression against non-Roman doctrines and practices.
Lutherans abandoning this understanding of "Protestants" means Lutherans abandoning what their own Luitheran confessions say about such Roman (i.e., the pope's) suppression.
Post a Comment