A Response to the 'Not See' Problem
I received the following email - from a colleague whom I respect - in response to my Not See blogpost. It’s a bit long, but I think it important to share it here unedited (except to change a particular person’s name to his initials):
I’m writing to express my concern about the your latest piece at the Gottesblog, “The LCMS Has a 'Not See’ Problem”.
In the Gottesblog post, you write, “one of the people sharing criticisms online was a certain LCMS layman named CM who posts edgy views regarding race and society on Twitter - including, among other things (apparently, I have not read his actual posts) praising Hitler, arguing that Hitler was in fact a Christian, and that we should expect to see him in heaven.”
I am concerned that you are writing about CM’s ideas without actually having read what CM has posted online and written elsewhere.
Most egregiously, CM has been open about his beliefs regarding Scripture. In an essay published at his website, “The European Peoples and Christianity,” CM writes:
“I believe, as did the Founding Fathers and many of our European forebears, that God presented Himself to us in two revelations: the second, and arguably the lesser of the two revelations, is the Bible; the first, and arguably God's greatest and most glorious work, is Nature.”
He further writes,“Intuitively grasping that we are made in the image of God, we created gods in our image. Our mythology is all to the glory of God. Our innate and inextricable reverence for the natural world is an expression of our unique intuition that it is the natural world, more than anything else, that reveals to us the face of God.”
“When Christianity arrived upon European soil, it was only the second of God's revelations — words on a page and stories relayed by men. It was European thought, European philosophy that gave flesh to the bones.”
"Our gods did not leave us, He simply revealed Himself. We do not betray our ancestors or pervert our Culture when we worship the one, true God. Christianity is not a veneer laid over a pagan structure; rather, Christianity is the beating heart of our Culture and it is the soul of our Volk. Our God in His glory and in His majesty has revealed Himself to us, bit by bit, over the course of our long and unrivalled history. Our veneration of His Nature and our grasping after the truth are as much a part of who we are today as it was a part of who our ancestors were millennia ago. We may no longer call Him Odin or seek intercession from Wotan, but our God is as He has ever been and we are, as we have ever been, His true People.”
I’m sure that you agree that these ideas --that Nature is a revelation superior to that of Scripture, that Christianity fulfills, and is not contrary to ancient paganism, and that the ancient pagans were actually worshipping the True God in an incomplete form— are contrary to Scripture on each point.
That Gottesdienst would call these ideas “edgy views regarding race and society” is troubling (not to mention CM’s open and unapologetic online support for fascism and racism.
Granted, CM is one man with a minuscule following. I agree that the LCMS does not have a Nazi problem. Nonetheless, we cannot dismiss CM’s ideas as “edgy views.” We must, if we address them at all, clearly condemn them as contrary to Scripture —just as we must do the same for the larger problem of Leftist ideologies in the LCMS.
I am asking that you would correct what I assume is an unintentional misrepresentation of these dangerous teachings.
First of all, I edited CM's name because of the way that social media works. Using his name can only give him attention and move him up the search algorithms. I don’t think that is particularly helpful. That is why I edited it.
Second, I disagree with my colleague’s description of my article as “misrepresentation” - unintentional or otherwise - mine or Gottesdienst’s - regarding what this person believes. I made it clear in the article that I have not read his writings. I spend very little time on Twitter, and I have no intention of scrolling and scrolling and scrolling to read what this person has written. I am going by a few screenshots that I have actually seen. Therefore, I avoided using labels or wading into territory of which I cannot speak, based on evidence that I have not personally seen. I’m also loathe to use the word “racism” - as the word itself has largely lost its meaning. The LCMS itself is being called “racist” - institutionally - even by members of synod, based solely on demographics percentages. This is not evidence. This is not proof. I do like my colleague’s use of the word “unscriptural” - as that is based on objective criteria rather than a waxen-nosed word that has been thrown at everyone without merit - probably himself included
My article is not about this excommunicated layman, but about the other end of the bell curve that is Not Seen.
My colleague agrees that we do not have a “Nazi problem:
Granted, CM is one man with a minuscule following. I agree that the LCMS does not have a Nazi problem. Nonetheless, we cannot dismiss CM’s ideas as “edgy views.” We must, if we address them at all, clearly condemn them as contrary to Scripture —just as we must do the same for the larger problem of Leftist ideologies in the LCMS.
President Harrison has said that the vast majority of people in our synod are loving toward their neighbors of every ethnicity. And I agree.
But again, my point was not to do an exposé on CM - who by the way considers me as “not one of us” and a “cuck” (while some of his opponents on Twitter apparently think that I “work with him” and that I hold that women are property, that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist, and that I believe Hitler to be in heaven - all accusations proffered without proof). So I am drawing fire from all sides. Good. That is a good place to be. It’s also funny to me that I have been simultaneously accused of being a feminist and a misogynist. And nobody ever offers evidence for such statements.
As legal scholar Wanjiru Njoya wrote in repose to my commenting about these very accusations:
Always put people to proof, and watch them scatter back into the shadows whence they came. They have nothing. They only make spurious claims because nobody ever puts them to proof. People are too bamboozled by their accusations to ask for proof.
I don’t really care about their ad hominem Twitter nonsense offered without proof. But what I do care about is the Not Seen unscriptural views that are either at the other end of the bell curve, or that have become so mainstream that they are just tolerated as part of the LCMS landscape. It is also funny that I’m simultaneously being accused of being a Harrison-lackey, and a Harrison-hater. Once again, when one is accused of opposite things, Occam suggests that the truth is in neither camp. And this is most certainly true in my case. The Not See problem is cultural, at least decades old, and transcends all ecclesial-political boundaries. If something good is to come of this sordid turn of events, maybe it will be that the people of our synod - pastors and laity alike - will demand that unscriptural views be dealt with by the church - regardless of whether these views are from the “left” or the “right.” We don’t need more memorials, resolutions, white papers, blue ribbon commissions, or CTCR opinions.
That was not how CM was addressed.
Again, I do thank my colleague for having the integrity to contact me with his concerns. We are not close friends, but we have known one another and conversed over the course of many years. He certainly knows that I disagree with anyone who would elevate natural revelation above Scripture, or put Paganism to some kind of equality with Christianity. As to racial matters, I can only point to my decades of very close and loving friendships and collegial working relationships with people across the ethno-religious spectrum from around the world, as well as the sharing of Word and Sacrament in my own parish for the last 18 years with people of every ancestry. Moreover, I would mention my decade of teaching Lutheran high school students to critically examine primary source material - including Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Communist Manifesto, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf - to prove where all of these authors and works are incompatible with the Christian faith and worldview.
I will neither denigrate my own ancestors and ethnicity, nor denigrate another person because of his ancestors and ethnicity. The implications of believing in the literal account of Genesis include the confession that all men are related as family, even as all men have an ethnic heritage and nationality, and are commanded to honor their fathers and mothers. We should not cave to pressure from those in either extremist camp who would bully us, one way or the other.
CM’s views are statistically insignificant in our synod. He is already excommunicated. He has no influence in our circles. So why beat a dead horse? CM is entitled to his opinions, and CM’s former congregation was entitled - under their own bylaws - to exercise church discipline. To focus on him is to not focus on others - those who are still in our synod, and influential.
I appreciate my colleague’s input, even though I disagree with his characterization that I engaged in “misrepresentation” - and I suspect we agree much more than we disagree on this matter. I thanked him privately, and I’m thanking him again, for the opportunity to further reflect on this matter, and to speak with clarity.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Is church discipline for unscriptural views only a one sided, one-way endeavor, and only at the behest and instigation of leftist popular media criticism? Or will we finally see a renaissance of our synod’s commitment to walking together as serious confessors of the Bible and the Book of Concord - in word and in deed - especially given the “larger problem of Leftist ideologies in the LCMS?”
Time will tell.