Sitting in the Back Pews of Life
Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto hits another one out of the park with his well-placed salvo against Lutheran "minimalism." I share his frustration. The very things that Lutheranism have that make it stand out in the crowded "marketplace" of American denominationalism are the very things that so many non-Lutherans find attractive, while cradle Lutherans sometimes seem determined to minimize or ignore them! What are we so embarassed about? The incessant self-loathing and self-depricating attitudes we display toward the treasure of doctrine and practice that is historic, Biblical and faithful Lutheranism is truly distressing to observe. I’m taking Dr. Netto’s remarks a bit further than he does in this article, but he makes reference to this problem in passing with his comment about Lutheran music. Here are Dr. Netto’s thoughts:
(This commentary is scheduled to be published in the April 2007 issue of the Reporter)
Theologically, there is really nothing objectionable about the
idiosyncratic preference of many Lutherans for the back pews in church.
I am sure that God does not care one iota where you sit during the
Sunday service, as long as this does not reflect unchristian prejudices
or a lack of interest in worship. Perhaps the spiritual right-hand
kingdom provides us with a foretaste of life beyond time and space. So
stay in the rear if that’s where you want to be.
That said, does this principle also apply to the left-hand realm
where we live out our biological lives using natural reason to guide
us? Do we, who are called to engage this world, have the right to loll
on the back pews of our secular reality?
More to the point, what are we to think of the fact that in the
110th Congress our number [of Lutherans] has shrunk from 20 to 18? And
what does it tell us about America’s 2.5 million Missouri Synod
Lutherans that only two, Dave Reichert (R-WA) and John M. Shimkus
(R-IL), were elected to he House of Representatives last fall, and none
to the Senate?
Two congressmen – that puts us on a par with the Unitarians, of
whom there are only 217,000 inhabiting this country. Is there some
pogrom underway keeping the tenth largest denomination in the United
States from being duly represented in Washington, a conspiracy perhaps
marginalizing confessional Lutherans to the point that even in Missouri
no Missouri Synod Lutheran made it to D.C. this time?
But no, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, with a mere
400,000 members, has two of them in the federal legislature. Given that
statistic, it wouldn’t make much sense to whine about an alleged
anti-Lutheran bias in politics. Instead, I suspect that a significant
number of Lutherans might hold a bias against politics — and for that
matter, against work in the media as well.
Type “famous Lutheran journalists” into your Google search engine,
and what do you get? Nix! The only well-known Lutheran media
personality I can think of is the amusingly grumpy Jack Cafferty, who
reads viewers’ e-mails on CNN.
A recent New York Times headline announced: “Christian Right Labors
to Find ’08 Candidate.” This should have activated Lutheran reflexes
among LCMS, ELCA and WELS members alike. Certain types of conservative
evangelicals and liberal Protestants actually consider it their godly
mission to find a presidential candidate of their persuasion.
Lutherans, on the other hand, are blessed with a sounder theology for
how this world ought to be run.
“It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,” Martin Luther
wrote. Replace the term, “emperor,” with the word “President,” and you
get the drift.
At a time when America is at war, the sober Lutheran voice
stressing reason as the God-given operating system for the left-hand
kingdom is paramount.
Should America remain in Iraq or withdraw its forces, regardless of
the consequences? Should even larger troop contingents be sent there,
or should the U.S. presence be diminished and limited to certain
pockets? Should petroleum consumption in this country be reduced by
radical measures, or should we trust market forces?
These vital questions and so many others require unruffled rational
assessment rather than the ideologically motivated hyperbole plaguing
us today. This is where a much stronger presence of men and women
raised in the Lutheran ethos would be a blessing on both sides of the
aisle in Congress – and in the media. This is also why during a forum
at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, evangelicals and Catholics appealed
to Lutherans last fall to open their doctrinal treasure chest to this
confused postmodern America – for the benefit of all.
Why is it, then, that the ELCA, LCMS and WELS together are so
woefully underrepresented in the nation’s capital that the result seems
like an absurd joke? There are in the United States 2.2 million
Episcopalians, compared with nine million Lutherans. But 37 congressmen
and senators belong to The Episcopal Church (TEC), twice as many as to
the three largest Lutheran denominations put together. Why this
discrepancy?
The answer lies perhaps in a phenomenon Henry V. Gerike, a pastor,
organist, and choirmaster in St. Louis, once called “Lutheran
minimalism.” Gerike was referring to a curious trend among Lutheran
congregations: “When the time comes for them to build a new sanctuary,
and they have a choice between installing a new organ befitting that
building or clinging to their old and by now incompatible instrument,
they would opt for the latter.”
The analogy is obvious. Lutherans have inherited the largest
treasure of sacred music of all Protestant denominations, but they are,
in Gerike’s words, too minimalist to splash for appropriate organs on
which these works can be properly played. Similarly, the Reformers have
handed down to today’s Lutherans theological gems that would
reintroduce sanity to public life. But no, today’s Lutherans prefer to
linger in the back pews of the left-hand kingdom eschewing these
wonderful gifts.
Does nobody in American Lutheranism hear the sirens’ wail going
out to parishes, Lutheran schools, and universities? It alerts pastors,
teachers, and parents that the Lutheran kairos is here — meaning that
the opportune time has come for them to instruct students to roll up
their sleeves, move forward from their back pews, and fully engage this
dangerous world to which they have so much to contribute.
Not to do so would in the end reduce Lutherans to a species neither
Scriptures nor the Confessions want us to be, and few Americans like:
separatist fundamentalists selfishly dismissing this unredeemed world,
which is still God’s kingdom after all, if you don’t mind.
In rhetoric, the word kairos describes a passing instant that must
be grabbed swiftly and with determination if success is to be achieved.
This means that Lutherans can very well miss their moment in history if
they insist on remaining by the exit of their worldly existence where
all of us have a divine vocation.
Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto is director of the Concordia Seminary Institute on Lay Vocation in St. Louis.
This article, while interesting and provocative, is, I’m afraid, based on a false premise.
I am a journalist in Fort Wayne, IN, and while I may not be famous enough to show up on a search of nationally recognized celebrities, my orthodox Lutheran faith directly influences my work. Similarly, I know many faithful Lutherans active in politics, government, business, the arts, etc. — people who also are not “famous” but nevertheless could hardly be accused of hiding out in the “back pew.”
In other words, lack of notoriety should not be confused with a lack of commitment,interest or involvement.
My own observation has been of ‘anti-zeal’: an almost phobic recoil from not just enthusiasm and emotionalism, to the point of near frigidity, but from the appearance of certainty as well.
It’s as if knowing our doctrine, or at least knowing it’s there, is enough. Lip-synching the liturgy is enough. Zeal for these or any other ‘Lutheran things’ is a danger, so we don’t go there. Not even the first step.
I often wonder how zealous we’d really be, if a succeeding pastor decided he could take it away from us.
But also, the world hates us more openly every day. So, maybe we’re privately clinging. True, it could even called timidly clinging. Maybe we mistake hiding the treasures for preserving the treasures.
While I appreciate to a degree the thrust of this article I think the author is forgetting something crucial.
Speaking from personal experience the toll being a congressman (or even in most situations a state legislator) upon a family is extremely high. More than one marriage and family has been devastated from the demands of continually campaigning and governing.
IN that light, perhaps the reason their are less “Lutheran” elected officials is because Lutheran’s are more apt to also understand their vocation as Fathers, etc…and well…when they have to make a choice between their family obligations and their civic obligations they choose the former. I don’t think that is probably a noble choice.
This is not how to win friends, but here I go. Please, just hear me out:
This is a well-written article, but I have to agree with Kevin that it has critical errors in it. This topic gets me so worked up. =P
In addition to what was previously stated, I would point out that the following public people are professed Lutherans:
John Bolton, just left as US Ambassador to the UN
Jack Cafferty, CNN
Coleen Rowley, 9/11 investigation whistleblower
William Renquist, US Supreme Court (died 2005)
Norman Schwarzkophf, retired Desert Storm General
Dana Carvey, Commedian
Kris Kristofferson, actor
John Mellencamp, actor
…and at least 2 dozen other actors, writers, commentators, and directors; many of whom are so politically active it is down right annoying.
This list took 5 minutes to find and it is by no means complete at all.
I strongly disagree with almost all of the people that I listed and their profession of faith has nothing to do with what they believe as demonstrated by the wide range of political views you get from that list.
A search of some of the larger local goverments reveal an amazing wealth of Lutheran politicians, but those governments are no more “enlightened” than the non-Lutheran, barbarian governments.
When the LCMS website posted the House and Senate Lutheran count I groaned. Are we really going to start counting political statistics regardless of their record? Is a pro-abortion politician really a win for the LCMS because he has an (L) by his name?
You know there are also have alot of Lutheran murderers too. To mention a few:
John List
Dennis Rader (BTK Killer)
Lee Harvey Oswald
Statistically, I guess that means we’re in the front pews in the “serial murder/presidential assasin” catagory?
…come to think of it, Karl Marx was raised a Lutheran. Alot of good that did him politically. I would also point out that the birthplace of Lutheranism has a horrific political track record.
As has been proven over the last several years, Republican does not mean less government and Democrat does not mean the troops come home. What makes us think that “Lutheran” is any different in the world of politics.
I wonder how such a great nation as this could have been created by a bunch of diests, agnostics, and non-lutherans (with the exception of our “First President”, John Hanson.)
Go look at the “good” Lutherans in the House and Senate. Are they champions for the critical issues we value? Does anyone even know?
If I am faced with the choice of an athiest who promises that he will carry out what I believe to be right and a “Lutheran” who wants to kill unborn babies or oppress the people with more stupid laws and taxes, I am not going to hesitate for a second in putting that heathen in office. If putting a “Lutheran” in office means upsetting the balance in favor of those who would ruin us and hand us over to our enemies, I will vote against him every time no matter what he believes. I am sorry that I am not a Lutheran team player.
If you voted a “Lutheran” democrat into office this time around, your vote put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the most powerful legeslative body on earth. Think of the wickedness that she and those in her caucus will be able to accomplish this term. A vote for your local house member is a vote for the leadership they will serve under. The party that they are allied with picks the leadership and sets the agenda. In hind sight, do you think that that was a wise vote?
Did it advance Lutheranism at all? Will your vote for a Lutheran allow Pelosi to authorize national civil unions? Will your vote for a Lutheran allow some of the wackjobs in Congress to cut funding to buy me body armor and training so that when I go to Iraq I can survive? Will your vote for a Lutheran mean that the pro-choice democrats that now run the legeslature will be able to strike down the next pro-life supreme court canidate? Only time will tell.
Putting aside the faliscy of counting people allies as they hold hands with your ideological, ethical, fiscal, or mortal enemies, there is a greater problem here. It is the sense of Deja Vu I get when I read articles such as this.
Every religious body writes these same articles and it is as if Lutherans don’t realize that. Every time I hear a Lutheran catagorically describe what they believe to be an exclusively Lutheran trait or problem I have to tell them: “You know I agreed with that point when the [insert denomination here] said it about themselves 10 years ago.”
Among all of the other exlusively Lutheran problems, the American Protestants as a whole claim to be in the back of the pews politically. So does the Gun Rights crowd, the Gay Rights crowd, the NAACP, the Pro Life crowd, the Pro Choice crowd, the Unions, the Tobacco Lobby, the Airlines, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Independents, etc, etc, etc…
Even if I grant that this article is an accurate potrayal of our political condition, could it be that the world hates what we stand for, thinks its foolishness, and doesn’t vote for us? Does rejection at the hands of public opinion automatically mean that we are politically weak or lazy?
You have to be popular to get elected and the Bible says that the ways of Christ are foolishness to the world. Who would vote for foolishness? [wait! Don't answer that!]
Maybe this says that Lutherans won’t stoop to the depths of dishonesty and manipulation that it takes to get elected these days. Is that a bad thing? Could it just be that political pandering does not work on people who have spent 500 years exposing fraud and deciet?
Maybe if we soiled our churches by letting presidential canidates “preach” from our pulpits like those churches in Selma did last Sunday, we could get more of our guys in office. Hmmm… no thanks.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the Lutherans who make up the back bone of the government that God instituted. Thanks to all of you who decided to be police, firemen, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, mail men, tax assessors, soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, TSA screeners, and building inspectors. Day after day, you keep us safe and carry out justice without questing after power or popularity. Surely, your work has touched my life alot more than some stuff-shirted political insiders in Washington.
I agree entirely with Pr. McCain’s introductory comment: “The very things that Lutheranism have that make it stand out in the crowded ‘marketplace’ of American denominationalism are the very things that so many non-Lutherans find attractive, while cradle Lutherans sometimes seem determined to minimize or ignore!”
Liturgy, psalm-chanting, weekly celebration of the Supper, obsessive focus on the cross, cradle Lutherans often seem embarrassed by these.
In contrast, among the hip “emergent” types, liturgy and a high sacramental theology is a cool thing. To be sure, we should be what God wants us to be irrespective of whether it’s cool or not. The irony, however, is that even on the world’s terms, “growth-oriented” Lutherans are running away from Lutheranism just at the point at which accentuating those differences would actually promote the growth they want.
Why do we think the message, “We’re exactly like the baptist church down the street, except that we sprinkle babies,” is a winner?
As for politics: Lutherans seem more business oriented than others. That’s just fine. The idea that politics is the sole measure of “impact” is a false measure.
Sheesh, I wish my fingers could keep up with my writing.
Clearly I think choosing family obligations is a noble choice.
“Liturgy, psalm-chanting, weekly celebration of the Supper, obsessive focus on the cross, cradle Lutherans often seem embarrassed by these.”
As a recent convert to Lutheranism, I will say that that has not been my experience at all. The most appealing thing about the LCMS is that they practice what they preach and they love what they do. Among the protestant denominations, Lutherans are the proudest group I have ever known (and I have made my rounds.) They are not only tied by common history and common confession, but the LCMS was founded on common language and common culture and most cradle Lutherans hold all those things dear to heart.
Most cradle Lutherans I know love the liturgy and cling to the Cross with a singular devotion. I am willing to grant that there may be cases of “minimalism” and perhaps different parts of the country face a broad spectrum of attitudes in their congregations.
…but are we sure this isn’t a case of the newlyweds accusing the 75th anniversary couple of not being romantic anymore?
Because I am new here, my heart is on fire about the liturgy. I am on fire about the Confessions. It is all so wonderful and new. I bring these things up to other Lutherans and they do not seem as impressed. Why? It is because they’ve had a steady diet of good food for 50+ years and it is not a novel thing. Does that mean they don’t value it? I do not think so. Maybe you need both kinds in the church.
It used to bother me that the cradle Lutherans weren’t like me, but then I realized that I’m the guy who wandered in from the desert and is making a big deal about the abundant water everywhere.
If I am not careful, I have a tendency to be proud of what I have discovered in Lutheranism. It suddenly becomes about my knowledge and piety, and my realization. Pure Lutheranism has never been about such subjective matters as that. New Lutherans like me, while energetic to a fault, have a nasty habit of getting fired up about the obvious and legalistic about outward zeal. Is that really how we want our entire church? Won’t that cause us to burn out quickly like so many of the emerging churches who blaze like white fire and enjoy massive growth for a season only to exhaust their energy and stamina?
Thank God that the objective reality of the church and salvation does not depend on our fickle emotion or limited zeal.
Doctrinal purity is a long haul endurance race and I will not fault anyone for pacing themselves. I know that if/when I come down off this conversion high, there will be stable cradle Lutherans to pick me up and set me right.
There are alot of quiet Lutherans who do not seem externally moved when they come to the Lord’s Supper. Just try and take the weekly observance away from them and see how “minimalist” they are. About that many seem to take the Liturgy for granted, but watch what happens when you tamper with it. The quiet laity of the LCMS rises strong and loud when it feels threatened. The stalwart defense of doctrine and practice is regularly made manifest.
If these things were not true, then the history of the LCMS would have been very different and our parctice would not be what it is today.
Mike,
You first write, “most cradle Lutherans hold all those things dear to heart.”
In the next sentence you write, “most cradle Lutherans that I know [love those things].”
There’s a big difference between characterizing what is true about “most cradle Lutherans” and characterizing the presumably much smaller set of cradle Lutherans whom you know.
Not know those whom you know, I’d concede the second sentence immediately. But I’d need to see data to believe your first sentence. And even if “most” cradle Lutherans embrace the liturgy & etc., does not rule out that cradle Lutherans “often” do not embrace those things, which was my more modest claim.
Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto opines:
“It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,” Martin Luther wrote. Replace the term, “emperor,” with the word “President,” and you get the drift.
The constitution establishes three coequal branches of government. If the President does not possess reason, there are constitutional checks on his stupidity.
Christian vocation is not exercised by revering the President as a new Caesar but by upholding the constitution as the true existing power ordained by God. Christian vocation is exercised by rejecting candidates who want to overthrow the existing power and establish an imperial presidency.
Type “famous Lutheran journalists” into your Google search engine, and what do you get? Nix!
I typed “famous Christian senators, at the time of the Emperor Claudius” and got a comparable outcome. Go figure!
But then I discovered that the result has Scriptural confirmation via the inspired scribe St. Paul … who seems to indicate that the early Church bunch were demographically poor, nondescript, poorly represented in the Sanhedrin and for the most part, pretty much dismissed by all the powers that be … except by the God who died for them.
I don’t know. Maybe the Lutherans are being spared having the fingers pointed at them, come the Judgment, by the solons of Sodom and Nineveh, through a comparative absence of blame for the legislative ditherings of this most wicked and perverse generation.
The “self-loathing” for things Lutheran will not be solved by a few more senators in Washington DC. It will be solved, perhaps, by a few more genuine genuflections to God’s true and holy presence, in the Lutheran sanctuaries. Lutheran doctrine and practice HAS much to offer to a dying world; but we prefer to cover such treasures and faith, with our unbusheled identification with evangelical protestant minimalism.
To clarify,
My personal observations are just that: personal observations.
This is why I said, “…that has not been my experience.” I also said that I was willing to grant that this may happen in other areas. No such qualifications were made by those who take the other side. The way it reads to me, it seems that they want to say that almost every Cradle Lutheran is like this way and that is not true. I felt someone should defend them.
None of this was to start an arugement and this is my final statment on this matter. My point was that Lutherans often make broad statements about themselves that may not always or even partially apply to the group as a whole. That is a rampant problem in the LCMS, not a lack of devotion to the platonic Lutheran ideal. In the LCMS, I find it hard to believe that “minimalism” rules as some would have us believe. We have loads of problems… strong opinions about the defense of liturgy, Justification, and what it is to be Lutheran is not one of them.
The data that I cited for my “immodest” claim was toward the end of my post: The historical record.
The LCMS would not be what it is today if my assumptions were not at least largely true of the group as a whole. If the laity and the majority of pastors didn’t care about these things to their core, where would the LCMS be on issues of alter/pulpet fellowship, Biblical inerrancy, the ordination of women, and liturgical preservation? ELCA is the church that is guilty of this and we are very far from them in every aspect of the confessions. Comparing the LCMS to ELCA proves my point.
The complaint everyone levies against the LCMS (which I take as a compliment) is that we are too conservative and traditional. How could that be if we are so moderate and weak in our opinions?
“Worship Wars” are the new indulgences in the Protestant church. Every few weeks a new inquisitor rolls into a small village somewhere in America and begins to talk about what must be done to preserve the church. Innocent souls are vexed and local congregations are torn apart because agendas are now driving the debate and people care more about advancing their pet issue than the souls of their brothers in Christ.
The result is a well intended list of extra-biblical teachings about what is really important and what is really effective in Christ’s church. Stop and look at all of the damage and all of the people who have been hurt by our man-made meddling. This was one of Luther’s points in the 95 Thesies: Love, peace, and charity are far more important than man-made inventions.
Is all this what is meant by “Love your Neighbor?” (which I may remind you is a much higher priority than being Purpose Driven or liturgical.)
If you do not believe that people are putting up extra requirements to support their side, tell a liturgical fanatic that you love Christian Rock and watch him worry about your savlation. Tell a Rick Warren wanna-be that you love to chant matins and watch him be concerned that you lack the Holy Spirit. Thankfully both of these groups are an extreme minority in the LCMS, but I have the unique situation of not being in either camp so I get the plesent experience of being judged too harshly by both sides. Based on what I have heard in the last six months, I can’t imagine what might be said to (or about) others who hold contrary opinions. THAT has a much larger effect on the church than alot of these more minor pet issues.
I just want to know why we pick on each other all the time. =(
I do not think this is an issue of the LCMS being in the back of the pews. I think this is an issue of the LCMS not sitting in the pews some people think we should sit in. Can’t you just be happy to see us in any pew?
If the original analogy was reversed and we compared how we treat eachother to sitting in the pews, “passing the peace” would consist of trying to get people to move to the pews where we think they belong. Where is the greeting with the holy kiss in all of this?
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. What does this mean?
—Answer. We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but DEFEND HIM, [THINK AND] SPEAK WELL OF HIM, AND PUT THE BEST CONSTRUCTION ON EVERYTHING.
How many of you think and speak well of Rick Warren? What about the other side of the issue?
How many of you try to explain your point kindly as the Small Catechism instructs?
I don’t think enough attenion is paid to that part of the Small Catechism when this topic comes up. We should be working to stop fights and not start new ones. I’ll give you all the last word because I’ve made my point.
1 Cor 13
So there are just as many Unitarians and WELS members of Congress as LCMS members? Why does Dr. Siemon-Netto assume this means Missouri-Synod Lutherans are under-represented in Congress?
Scott Adle pointed out on Dr. Siemon-Netto’s blog: “If there are 9 million Lutherans in a country of 300 million, that comes to roughly 3%. If you say that there are 18 Lutherans in a (total) Congress of 535, that seems to come out to… roughly 3%. It would seem that Episcopals and Unitarians are over-represented.”
Why should it surprise us that moderate and liberal Christians are elected to public office in greater numbers than ultra-conservative Lutherans?
Even assuming a false premise that Lutherans are under-represented in Congress, or assuming that we should seek to be just as over-represented as Episcopalians and Unitarians, do we even know how many Confessional Lutherans actually run for office?
Are Missouri-Synod Lutherans running but just not getting elected?
If they are not running at the desired rate, do they have valid reasons not to run?
Is the liberal American electorate likely to choose a candidate with positions on today’s issues that a true Lutheran would (should) have?
Why are Episcopalians and Unitarians over-represented?
All these and more questions should be considered before berating Lutherans _en masse_ for supposedly shrinking from their duty to participate in public life.
Doesn’t the Eighth Commandment apply here? Is Dr. Siemon Netto putting the best construction on his anecdotal evidence of Lutheran “minimalism?”
Regardless, I would agree that it is important to keep Lutherans informed of the value, propriety, and salutary nature of participation in public office if they believe they are called to such and receive confirmation of that call by being elected and sworn into office.
I wish his article had been more informative than accusatory.
Amen and thank you Erich! You have put it much more elloquently than I ever could (and you used 1/3 fewer words!)
Erich:
I think he is pushing us to be a louder Lutheran voice in public life rather than berating. Uwe is the highschool football coach pushing Lutheran intellectuals to get our voices out of our closed little world and to put it up front and center in the public sphere. Poor miserable sinners need to hear that in the public sphere we need to get our hands dirty -
Jon
Dr. Anderson opines, “Maybe the Lutherans are being spared having the fingers pointed at them, come the Judgment, by the solons of Sodom and Nineveh, through a comparative absence of blame for the legislative ditherings of this most wicked and perverse generation.”
Legislators, too, can be saved. However, it is easier for an elephant, or a donkey, to pass through the eye of a needle than for a politician to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Recent polling suggests that the electorate desires a candidate who will gather all the high priests of Baal in “A Prayer for America.” Pimping for Baal is considered a sign of leadership in our post 9/11 world.
Has even one of our 535 legislators pointed out that the document that he swore to uphold forbids the establishing of pagan religions? Has even one of our 18 Lutheran legislators pointed out that the document that he swore to uphold forbids prayer to any God besides Christ?