A modernist, a postmodernist, and a Lutheran walk into a bar. . .

Last updated on: August 18, 2017 at 12:34 am By Gene Veith

We’re in Australia, where I’ve been doing quite a bit of speaking. I just gave a public lecture at the Lutheran seminary in Adelaide entitled “The Modern, the Postmodern, and the Lutheran: How Lutheran Christianity Can Address the 21st Century.” (It draws on a book I’ve written with Trevor Sutton. Much more on that when CPH releases it on October 31.) Anyway, my wife said, “Your title sounds like a joke! The Modern, the Postmodern, and the Lutheran went into a bar. . . ”

She’s right, as usual, as I told the crowd, saying that the rest of my presentation would be the punchline. But I have taken up the challenge of turning the title into a joke:

A modernist, a postmodernist, and a Lutheran walk into a bar.

The bartender asks the modernist, “What’ll you have?”

The modernist says, “First prove to me with rational certainty and scientific evidence that you can make me a good drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender then asks the postmodernist, “What’ll you have?”

The postmodernist says, “You have no right to impose your personal tastes on me! I’ll construct my own drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender asks the Lutheran, “What’ll you have?”

The Lutheran says, “Give me a beer.”

Get it?

The Australian version of that last line would be, “The Lutheran says, ‘Give me some Barossa Valley wine.'” That’s an allusion and a tribute to the major Lutheran contribution to the Australian economy, the wine industry. (That was started by German Lutherans fleeing the Prussian Union, others of whom came to the United States to found the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.)

But I will here use what in America is considered “the Lutheran beverage.”

It seems to me that Christianity entails, among many other things, an acceptance of ordinary reality that is missing from many worldviews today. The modernist mindset tries to lord it over existence, subjecting everything to mental comprehension and technological manipulation. Existentialists, who can be modernists or postmodernists, insist that the physical world, however orderly in blindly and mindlessly following mechanical laws, is absurd, tragic, and void of purpose or meaning. Postmodernists respond to what they consider the unknowability and the meaningless of the external world by believing that they and/or the oppressive culture “construct” their own realities.

Christians, though, with their doctrines of Creation and Incarnation can embrace the physical realm, even while acknowledging that it does not constitute the whole story. Lutherans can be particularly helpful in making Christians realize this, what with their insight that God works through and actually makes Himself present through the physical means of the sacraments. And the Lutheran doctrines of the Two Kingdoms and of Vocation discloses God’s blessings, His workings, and His presence in the most ordinary-seeming, secular-seeming dimensions of ordinary life. Such as drinking beer. Or making and consuming Australian wine.

I invite your discussion of these points. Also, to lighten up our mood–perhaps soured by the events and topics of the week–I invite improvements and variations on the joke I have just told. I also invite other “. . .walked into a bar” jokes. The only criterion is that they must be clean and appropriate for a family audience.

I’ll give you another one to get you started:

A priest, a minister, and a rabbi walked into a bar. The bartender said, “Hey, is this some kind of joke?”

Photo from Pixabay, CC0, Creative Commons

Premium Content

Virtue Signaling as Self-justification

Last updated on: August 21, 2017 at 8:26 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

“Virtue signaling” is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.” It has become a staple of social media, whether by an expression of indignation when “catching” someone else’s lapse in sensitivity or by an overt reference to one’s own good works.

The charge, though, of virtue signaling has become a way to discredit the virtuous ones. An article in the New York Times, ‘Virtue Signaling’ Isn’t the Problem. Not Believing One Another Is, defends the practice when it is sincere.

But the issue is not, as the article suggests, that certain displays of virtue are not sincere, that people are signaling virtues that they don’t really have, that they are just being hypocritical. I think that most virtue signaling–pointing out that I am not a racist, though you are; that I care about the environment, while it is evident that you don’t; that I support the LGBT cause, while you are a narrow-minded big–reflects positions sincerely held.

What it illustrates is the phenomenon of “self-justification.” We have a need to “justify” ourselves, to show that we are right, that we are good.

It is surely telling that in a culture that supposedly cares nothing for morality–that is relativistic, that rejects absolutes, that is amoral or flagrantly immoral–is actually full of moral indignation, righteous criticism, and virtue signaling.

Even when we are committed to something that has always traditionally been considered immoral, we can’t just do what we want anyway. We insist that it is moral. We change the paradigms and definitions so that it appears to be moral. But even then–say, in the example of homosexuality–that is not enough. We want the approval of others. The approval of society.

So it isn’t enough for homosexual behavior to be tolerated. Society must allow for homosexual marriage, so that it is exactly on a par with regular marriage. But that isn’t enough either. We must insist that everyone approve of homosexual marriage. And anyone who does not approve of it must be condemned and, preferably, punished. Those who condemned homosexuality must now be condemned themselves. Only then is the sense of justification complete.

Virtue signalers want to appear virtuous, to be considered good and to be affirmed as such by others. But often they are signaling their virtues to people whom they do not consider virtuous. Virtue signalers aren’t interested in gaining their approval. But they are also trying to gain self-approval. They need to think of themselves as virtuous.

So why is this?

It points to our primal need to be justified. And our inability to justify ourselves. We are actually not good because we fail to keep God’s Law. So we make up our own laws that are easier to fulfill. But we generally fail at those too.

This is all evidence of our need for Christ to justify us.

I am by no means saying that our petty psychological wants and needs and our desire for social approval are in any way equivalent to our standing before God as lost as condemned creatures. But our evasions and rationalizations and trivializations point to our fallen condition.

The Law destroys our every attempt at self-justification. But when that happens, we can the hear the Gospel, as God’s Word calls us to the Cross of Jesus Christ, who bears our sin and our condemnation, who thus justifies us. God declares that we are righteous because, by faith, we are united to His righteous Son. To believe, accept, and trust in Christ’s justification is to be justified by faith.

Read Living by Faith by Oswald Bayer, the contemporary German theologian. Read this post I did two years ago on self-justification.

When we live by justifying faith in Christ, we don’t have to signal our virtue, to others or to ourselves. And yet justifying faith, as we exercise it in the trials of life, bears fruit in good works, particularly as we love and serve our neighbors in our various vocations in the home, the workplace, the church, and the state.

Illustration by Andeecollard, Flickr, Creative Commons License

Premium Content

The zeal of converts

Last updated on: August 15, 2017 at 2:15 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Many of the critics of Pope Francis in his more liberal positions are converts to Catholicism, a fact that liberal Catholics are throwing in their face.

The gist goes something like this: You converted to Catholicism so now you think you’re more Catholic than the pope. You still think like a Protestant. Or like a Fundamentalist. Because you are a convert, you don’t really understand Catholicism, which is organic, fluid, ever-developing, etc.

Now those who convert to a particular church or ideology do so because they believe in it. Of course converts will tend to be conservatives. As C. S. Lewis has observed, hardly anyone converts to the liberal forms of Christianity. Why should they? Theological liberals, on the other hand, tend to be “lifers” who think their church body should be changed.

I know this this true in my case, convert to Lutheranism that I am. It drives me to distraction when I come across “Lutherans” who want to eliminate from our church body elements that were the very things that made me want to join it (e.g., doing away with the liturgy; downplaying doctrinal distinctives to be more like evangelicals or mainline Protestants). The people who want to make changes are typically life-long members who are tired of their traditions and want to try something new. They don’t know what it’s like on the outside. Or why authentic Lutheranism can be so attractive to someone coming from the mainline denominations or from generic evangelicalism.

One question I have to liberals in my tradition is, if you don’t like our church’s positions–on, say, women’s ordination, gay marriage, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.–why don’t you go elsewhere? Why don’t you “convert” to one of the many liberal denominations that you agree with? Why do you want to change this one? The answer is usually something on the order of, “This is my church! I was born in this church! My ancestors have been members of this church for generations!” This gives them a sense of ownership. And, I’m sure, a sense of annoyance at us newcomers.

At any rate, converts tend to be especially zealous for their new identity. This will be true also of Calvinists, Orthodox, Anglicans, and even of non-religious affiliations, such as conservatism. Evangelicals, of course, all have experienced a conversion from non-belief to Christianity, which explains their zealousness. Church membership, though, is not such a big deal for most evangelicals, who often go from one evangelical denomination or non-denomination to another. I am referring here not to Christian conversion but to “conversions” from one Christian tradition to another.

Catholic converts probably have it harder, though, than others. Many people convert to Catholicism because they have read Chesterton, Newman, and Neuhaus (all converts, by the way). They think in terms of the medieval synthesis; they love the idea of a universal church that doesn’t change; they yearn for the majesty of the Mass. Then, once they go through instruction, they find themselves in a parish with a priest who favors liberation theology, feminist nuns, and an informal folk-mass that is sappier than the services they were fleeing from. So of course they become Catholic traditionalists, searching for Latin masses and becoming frustrated with much of contemporary American Catholicism.

I do, however, see a potential problem in churches consisting mostly of converts. More than one-third of Americans belong to a religion other than the one they were born into. (Most of that, I suspect, has to do with the denominational fluidity of evangelicalism, mentioned above.) But there can be a danger a consumerist approach to church membership, selecting a church because you “like it” or because it conforms with your beliefs. As opposed to being a part of a church that has formed you spiritually for your whole life.

My wife and I are converts to Lutheranism, but I am thankful that our children have had the benefit of “being born into the church.” They have had the benefit of baptism, Lutheran schools, confirmation, and weekly worship. Now that they are adults, they are still faithful Lutherans, for which we are eternally grateful. (I realize that it doesn’t always work out that way. I have had students who doubt their denominational identity and even their Christianity because they think they only believe because of their upbringing, as if God didn’t use the vocations of the family to bring children to Himself.)

I hope that our children and their congregations will appreciate converts when they find them. Converts who genuinely appreciate their theological tradition can help “lifers” to do the same.

Photo: John Ragai, adult confirmations, Flickr, Creative Commons License

Premium Content

And now war with Venezuela?

Last updated on: August 14, 2017 at 5:35 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Venezuela, with its leftist dictator Nicolas Maduro, is already a basket-case. The country is in a state of economic meltdown, other Latin American countries are isolating his regime, and ordinary Venezuelans are rallying against their government. Now President Trump has said that he is considering a “military option.”

But why? And that threat has only made matters worse. Latin America–which had been on our side against Venezuela–is now rallying in its support, at this invocation of the old American “gun-boat diplomacy.” So are the people of Venezuela, including those opposed to Maduro but who do not want to see their country invaded.

The president told reporters, after issuing economic sanctions against the country, “We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary.”

This came at the worst possible time as Vice-President Pence just returned from meeting with South American leaders to organize the opposition to Maduro.

Now Latin America is unified in condemning not Maduro but President Trump!

The United States has a long history of intervening in Latin American nations, sending troops and invading them to support American interests. The United States has long been trying to live down that reputation and has made progress in building more positive relationships with the countries of South and Central America.

And now President Trump threatens to invade Venezuela.

This, even though President Trump had promised during the election not to get into any more pointless wars that are not unrelated to the defense of the United States. This is why many of us voted for him!

There is no conceivable American interest in invading Venezuela and overthrowing Maduro. Especially since he is clearly on his way out anyway!

But the world needs to understand this: President Trump is just talking. He is using words to intimidate Maduro. And the president is speaking off the top without thinking through what he is saying, as he does so often.

He is not going to invade Venezuela. He is clearly not a diplomat, for whom words always have to be carefully considered and nuanced.

But there is a good reason for that attention to words.

UPDATE: With the Venezuela statement, the president was more specific than he should have been. But in responding to the neo-Nazi who ran his truck into a crowd of protesters, killing one and injuring dozens, he was vaguer than he should have been. He condemned the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” setting up a moral equivalency between the “many sides” rather than condemning the specific “hatred, bigotry and violence” of the white nationalists who were rallying in Charlottesville, one of whom killed the protesters.

This just fuels the narrative that President Trump, despite his denials, supports the white nationalists (who admittedly support him).

President Trump needs a 15-second delay before his words go public. He needs to start relying on speech-writers and staff members to compose and vet his statements, in line with what other presidents have done. He needs to stop tweeting, stop meeting with the press, and stop talking off the top of his head.

As it is, not only our diplomatic relationships with other countries are damaged, his political standing in this country is damaged and thus his ability to implement his agenda and “make America great again.”

Premium Content

Loneliness is greater threat to health than obesity

Last updated on: August 6, 2017 at 6:46 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

A study has found that social isolation is a greater threat to public health than obesity.

A meta-analysis of 148 studies found that loneliness, social isolation, and living alone showed a strong correlation with premature death, one equal to or exceeding the commonly-accepted risk factors such as obesity.

Conversely, according to a report on the research, improving “a greater social connection” cuts a person’s risk of early death by 50%.

Currently, over a quarter of the American population live alone. Half of the adult population is unmarried. Thirty-five percent of adults over 45–which comes to 42.6 million people–suffer from chronic loneliness.

Furthermore, the marriage rate is going down. So is the number of children couples are having.

Traditional communities and “mediating institutions“–such as civic organizations, voluntary associations, and other memberships–are also in decline.

Those include involvement in churches. Congregations are communities of faith where individuals have traditionally found love, support, and connections with others.

The government, the health sector, and the culture as a whole have been mobilizing to fight obesity. But the institutions of marriage, the family, and parenting continue to take hits.

Some thoughts and Biblical reflections after the jump. (more…)

Premium Content

Misunderstanding the cultural influence of the Reformation

Last updated on: July 14, 2017 at 9:32 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The cultural influence of the Reformation is getting lots of attention on this 500th anniversary of Luther’s 95 Theses. But the topic is often treated with a theological ignorance that is surprising to find in works of scholarship.

The Nation has a long article on the subject, quoted and linked after the jump, which is essentially a review essay of several new books on Luther and Protestantism. As the article observes, the Reformation is often credited or blamed for opposite influences: for a new personal piety and for the rise of secularism; for recovering the Bible and for launching modernity; for the rise of individualism and for the rise of the nation state; for inventing freedom and for capitalist oppression, etc., etc.

The article by Elizabeth Bruenig, drawing on the books she is reviewing, says that what Luther did was to make religion a private, inward matter. Whereas the external world–including the state, the society, the economic order–was irrelevant spiritually. Therefore, it was allowed to run along on its own without a religious context (as in Catholicism). Thus the rise of secularism, modernity, science, and a world that does not need to consider God.

Meanwhile, the inner spiritual life that Luther encouraged had the additional effect of questioning all external authority, making a space for freedom and undermining institutions, which also had a secularizing and eventually revolutionary effect.

But this analysis, while citing Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, completely misunderstands what it means–to the point of interpreting it to mean its opposite. And it utterly ignores one of Luther’s greatest and most culturally influential theological contributions, the place where he directly addressed the value of the “secular” realm and to the role it plays in the Christian’s faith; namely, his doctrine of vocation.

What other examples of theological illiteracy do you see in this article? (Hint: Did Luther really teach a theology based on inwardness, with individuals going inside themselves for a purely interior relationship with God?)

(more…)

Premium Content

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What sea did Jesus walk on?

Select your answer to see how you score.