Keep Honking, I’m reloading
A commenter on this blogpost responded:
I’m not sure how helpful this article is. It feels like I’m reading an article on Fox News. Now we await a savior who would usher in a new conservatism in the LCMS by draining the swamp. Ugh! Maybe stop worrying about what others are doing and serve our congregations faithfully.
It’s ironic and funny because I’m the author of the piece about which he is commenting, and I don’t watch - or care for - Fox News (I haven’t had cable in a quarter century). But this is a common refrain from Leftists and TDS patients (who see “Trump!” and “Hitler!” lurking behind every corner: those who can’t come up with an actual argument in response to a premise they don’t like. There is a reason the NPC meme is funny.
But aside from the usual Leftist stultification apparent in this comment is the reality that people don’t understand the inherent conservatism of our Lutheran confession of faith.
Conservatism isn’t simply a brand identification (Coke, not Pepsi, Ford, not Chevy, etc.) - it is rather a worldview. Of course, many of those who call themselves conservative are anything but - whether politically or theologically. But actual conservatism is a worldview that gives preference and privilege to the past. In other words, we “honor our father and mother.” We defer to the wisdom of our forbears as the default.
And in spite of the multiplicity of confessions and church bodies that grew from it, the Reformation went in two directions: conservative and radical. As the title of Krauth’s book asserts, the Lutheran reformation was conservative - as opposed to the Reformed (in general) and the Anabaptists, whose worldview was not as intent on reformation, but of revolution. By contrast, the Lutheran Confessions go to great pains to assert our continuity from the past. This is why, in spite of our confession of sola scriptura, our Book of Concord cites the secondary witnesses of church fathers, creeds, councils, and even popes and canon law - not as a matter of authority, but rather to prove that we are not innovating, we are not creating any new doctrines. We are reformers, not revolutionaries. We are conservative.
Sadly, television-watchers (especially those whose TVs are droning on 24-7 with CNN or Fox News), and people who can think of nothing but ephemeral politics, hear the word “conservative” and can cannot get past the short-term secular political propaganda that they have been programmed to repeat.
We often use the word “confessional” as an adjective to describe our Lutheran worldview - often to differentiate us from those who use the word “Lutheran” but whose progressive and liberal worldviews have brought about a radical deviation from our Lutheran confession (like the Seminex radicals who found a home in the ELCA). These liberals are not defined as such because they vote Democrat (though they may well do so), but because they reject the conservative Reformation principle that the Bible is the Word of God, and as such, is infallible and the foundation of what we believe, teach, and confess. A liberal “Lutheran” confesses a fallible Bible and a quatenus Book of Concord. They are deconstructors of the Lutheran confession and tradition. A “confessional” Lutheran is, by definition, a conservative Lutheran. For he is confessing, that is “saying the same things” that he heard from God’s Word, from the apostles, and from those who have likewise confessed faithfully before him. These are the “traditions” of which St. Paul speaks.
Speaking of tradition, we Lutherans of the conservative reformation reject those traditions that violate the Word of God. But where tradition harmonizes or confesses the Word, our default is to retain those traditions. This is a Chestertonian conservatism, as the great conservative writer argues:
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.
G.K. Chesterton also differentiates between a reformer and a revolutionary:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
We are reformers, not deformers, not radicals, and not revolutionaries. We sought restoration to a harmony with Scripture and the ancient church, not the establishment of a new one. We lovingly dusted off the treasures to preserve them, not as museum pieces to gawk at from behind glass, but for use in the real world. We did not burn down our own house in the arrogant assertion that we could simply build a better one.
And this is also true about our liturgical conservatism.
Lutheran reforms to the medieval Mass and prayer offices were conservative. Unlike the radical reformation, it is our principle to retain as much as possible for the sake of continuity. We did not abolish the Mass and create some new kind of worship service. We did not replace the altar with a stage, the font with a drum kit, and the pulpit with a bar stool. We did not trade in our candles for spotlights, our thuribles for smoke machines, our vestment-clad ministers for dancing girls and hipster preachers that ape the radical reformation. We did not throw out the participatory corpus of God’s Word expressed beautifully in Gregorian chant and chorale for a spectator replacement of unsingible and shallow “Boyfriend Jesus” pop ditties. We did not displace our reverent weekly Lord’s Supper with an occasional casual observance that turns the Sacrament into an embarrassment that is to be gotten through as quickly as possible.
And once again, some of our liberal critics wince when we assert the conservative nature of our faith, shrieking like demons for us to “stay in our lane” and only talk about the liturgy - as if we were archaeologists waxing eloquently on a one-inch square piece of pottery found in a dirt pile and writing journal articles for one another. Well to hell with that! Our “lane” is the conservative reformation. The liturgy is an important aspect of it, but it is not the totality of it. For we can see what the half-dead Seminex liberals have done in the ELCA. One can find liturgy there, but it is nothing more than a satanic shell of sexual confusion, deviation from the Word of God, and false doctrine. We are not interested in that - no matter how “liturgical” they are.
I am concerned that the new pope of Rome will be a triumph for the leftists, as so far, he seems far more friendly to the Latin Mass than the last one. Traditionalist Roman Catholics place so much emphasis on the form of the liturgy, that I foresee that they will back the current pope - even if he espouses liberal theology (and yes, it’s too early to tell) - because he will likely loosen the strictures on the Latin Mass. I fear that they may be willing to sacrifice the credendi for the sake of the orandi. Given enough time, the “trad” of the future might be willing to sacrifice the male priesthood and opposite-sex marriage upon the altar of the traditional liturgy.
We will not do that. We see the importance of both theological and liturgical conservatism. It is all or nothing. Liberalization of the liturgy leads to a degradation of the sacraments. Liberalization of doctrine leads to a degradation of the Word. We believe in the Gottesdienst, which is both Word and Sacrament, and will not sacrifice either. Lex orandi, lex credendi. We are conservative on both, and will not be bullied by anyone to shut up. We are not advocating a mindless aesthetic - even though God’s own preferences expressed in Holy Scripture do advocate for the beautiful, which is not antithetical to the good and the true. There is no impediment to articulating the Gospel not only with theological clarity, but also with beauty and continuity - and indeed, this is the path chosen by the reformers themselves. Those who portray us otherwise are either themselves liars, or they have been deceived by liars. Here we stand!
In fact, the shrieking and the moaning and the Liturgical Derangement Syndrome serve as rocket fuel for Gottesdienst to turn it up another notch. As the old bumper sticker says, “Keep honking. I’m reloading.”