'Pay no attention to that blogger behind the curtain' part 3
posted 29 March 2004, Monday
So, I think that last post was a bit incoherent, but it seems to be working better than the others. I'm afraid, however, that the last bit may be confusing, so we're off in search of clarity. Whether we will find it or not, well, I make no promises.
I think it might help to start with this comment by FDN of The Blogsburg Confession: 'Great...now I am going to have to write an apologia for why I'm willing to "hurl anathema at entire traditions." Maybe sometime later in the week.' I certainly didn't mean to put her or anyone else on the spot, as it were. If you've read her stuff (You haven't? Go now and do so. I'll wait. Really. The link's there to your left.) then you know that sometime in the not so distant past she left the Roman Catholic Church to become a confessional Lutheran. She was quite at the center of things in the Catholic Church, learned in her history and doctrine, and if memory serves, quite the conservative RC. She clearly knew what she was doing when she left, and she is quite right to note that Lutheran dogmatics and proclamation is, for obvious reasons, at least implicitly an anti-Roman polemic. This only makes sense. I believe it was that great confessional Lutheran Peter Brunner (one of my heroes) who said that if a Lutheran doesn't ask every day why they're not Roman Catholic then they're missing the point. So, FDN has found in confessional Lutheran dogmatics and practice the answers to nagging questions over Roman Catholic doctrine that most folks would rather just went away. Clearly, then, she will be engaged in all manner of polemic and constructive, er, critique of Roman Catholicism as she deepens her understanding of Lutheran doctrine. Or something like that - I'm trying not to arrogantly assume I simply know someone else's mind.
I write all this because it presents me with a challenge, although she didn't mean it in that way at all. For you see, no one can, with any justice, deny that if she blasts away at Rome, she both knows what she's talking about and has the experience to do so with nuance and precision. Moreover, in adopting confessional Lutheranism she has taken on such unpopular practices as closed communion and confessional subscription for membership. So, now she seems to find herself facing two fronts - one the one hand, Rome, with all the errors she now finds there, and on the other hand, certain reformed evangelical folk who can't understand why they can't take communion at a Missouri-Synod church. (None can seem to say why they should want to if the Missouri - Synod is in such grave error that it restricts communion unjustly.) Given all this, she scarcely needs to offer an apologia for hurling anathemas - it's quite understandable really.
I've found that most folks throughout blogdom, and even out there, in that real world we hear so much about, have had at least similar experiences. They've either been mistreated in their former communions, or they've felt honor bound to leave them for whatever reason, landing in a place that for them answers questions long suppressed by folks in their former homes. Whatever the story, and there are endless variants, seems that most folks have as clear an idea of what they're not, as they have of what they are.
The reason I feel so odd is that nothing in my experience comes close to anything like this. I spent far too much time describing that experience in the previous post, so for now all I need say is that I've never really cared about the opposition (that's not really the best way to put it, but it'll have to serve for now). Now, let me be clear. I should think most folks who chance upon my stuff know I like a good fight, and I can be merciless with all those semi-Pelagian nitwits and neo-Epicurean Spongites who litter the ecclesial landscape of every communion. I am also well aware (though some see fit to instruct me as if I were the ecclesial equivalent of a five year old) that the classical dogmatic pronouncements of the Church were made in opposition to heresy and schism. There's a place for the anathema, but as far as different groups of Christians are concerned, I've found that often folks are more adept at saying what they're against in other confessions than saying what they are in themselves. It's as if they would be struck dumb were they forbidden from offhand remarks, condescending jokes, and outlandish generalizations at The Other's expense.
What's more, as I noted it's just impossible for me to write off the traditions that formed those who have taught me so much about what it means to be a Christian. I'm sure that's sentimental to some, but allow me to mitigate that at least in part. You see, it's not that I find all these folks to be without error, or some such nonsense. I simply find that even in their sins and errors they are greater than I ever can be. They struggled and suffered and worked within the limits of what they could know and do. To just write 'em off based on some received, untested opinion is evil. It's bearing false witness. It's slander.
I suppose I'd go even farther and say that I am quite frankly skeptical that there is such a thing as a single 'Reformed', say, or 'Lutheran' or even 'Roman' tradition. To take the Lutheran world, whence I come, it's clear that the refugees from that idiotic Prussian Union (ancestors of the Missouri - Synod) had a different way of reading the confessions and understanding Evangelical history than did the Scandanavians who settled around Minnesota. That pastor I mentioned could remember three generations of Lutherans of different stripes who wouldn't even speak to each other, all within his very family. (Yes, it seems that the occasional young man and woman overcame this and got married, resulting in rollicking family reunions.)
I'll just drop a few more examples. Dutch Reformed are quite different from Southern Presbyterians, who are different from the Scottish tradition from which we get the present Presbyterian Church in America. There are even Cumberland Presbyterians, who seem doctrinally like Weslyans, at least with regard to election and predestination, while retaining the presbyterian polity. Again, there are many varieties of Latin American Catholicism that would seem quite alien to a fellow from Hamburg or Paris, and it's difficult to assume they both read the same book when they read the Catechism, or that they pray the same prayers when they each pray the Mass, even if the words are the same.
So you see, the world for me is quite complex. It's rather trying, I don't mind saying. (I'm not saying, by the way, that everyone's life is simple compared to mine. No, looking around, the actual day-to-day living of my life is ridiculously easy. It's wending my way through all these conflicting claims that's hard.) And, to reiterate, I'm quite capable of deciding something's wrong. Most everything is, you know. It's just that I admire an awful lot of people I think are wrong in one way or another. Hence my difficulty.
I'm sure this has brought closure for many. It's crystaline in clarity, obviously important, worth every second of your time in fact for it has changed the very way in which you see our world.
Hey, it at least filled up a few minutes didn't it?
Peace.