Challenges Unique to the U.S.

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another challenge is the influence of decision theology (Arminianism) in most Christian branches. I have many issues with Calvinists, but one area where Luths and Calvs agree is that we don't inherently "choose" to follow God, God chooses us. This mindset is completely foreign to most other American Protestants, who think you choose God and that you need to be running into every street corner to make converts pick God. The difference between the Lutheran view of monergism and, say, the independent fundamental Baptist view of getting everyone to do the Romans road, "win souls," and make a public proclamation to faith, is immense (I always found it funny that the IFB were naive enough to think they could win massive multitudes to faith with the right gimmicks, and yet their churches seldom grew -- they are oblivious to the fact that most Americans are heading secular, and few secular men want to lead, while few women want to dress in ankle-length skirts -- you can't be separate from the world, while thinking you are also converting the world en masse; there is no Biblical or contextual precedent for this, and it also violates basic empirical logic!).

Different wording (not necessarily a different meaning!) that seems more true to me personally (since I have been in so many churches in my life) is that we have faith because God made us able to have faith or even intervenes to help us -- "graciously enabled". And then another wording that makes sense with the totality of scripture (taken together as a whole) is that we are cooperating with Him, and He is working in us, accomplishing all that we never could, and helping us all along, as we rely on Him.

So, the distinctions some try to make in theology about whether we 'cooperate' or not seems moot to me, in that simply Christ tells us to do, and tells us we can only do if we abide in Him, remaining in Him, have His words remain in us, remain on the Vine (John chapter 15), and that's it. Further distinctions are just likely to only confuse, and miscommunicate, more than anything. Put another way, I'm thinking most people in church A will flourish just as well in church B, even if to a few it appears superficially as if the two churches have differences in theology, because people are not quite understanding precisely what everyone means by the wordings they use (often), though of course some are merely ideological (and then we could pray for them individually).
This might help some -- in our Lutheran church we several times a year will be encouraged to evangelize, though in a variety of ways (not preaching on street corners necessarily! :) ), including for instance to simply show Christ in our actions, as one example (but not the only one).
 
Upvote 0

kdm1984

WELS
Oct 8, 2016
309
365
SW MO, USA
✟38,886.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Different wording (not necessarily a different meaning!) that seems more true to me personally (since I have been in so many churches in my life) is that we have faith because God made us able to have faith or even intervenes to help us -- "graciously enabled". And then another wording that makes sense with the totality of scripture (taken together as a whole) is that we are cooperating with Him, and He is working in us, accomplishing all that we never could, and helping us all along, as we rely on Him.

So, the distinctions some try to make in theology about whether we 'cooperate' or not seems moot to me, in that simply Christ tells us to do, and tells us we can only do if we abide in Him, remaining in Him, have His words remain in us, remain on the Vine (John chapter 15), and that's it. Further distinctions are just likely to only confuse, and miscommunicate, more than anything. Put another way, I'm thinking most people in church A will flourish just as well in church B, even if to a few it appears superficially as if the two churches have differences in theology, because people are not quite understanding precisely what everyone means by the wordings they use (often), though of course some are merely ideological (and then we could pray for them individually).
This might help some -- in our Lutheran church we several times a year will be encouraged to evangelize, though in a variety of ways (not preaching on street corners necessarily! :) ), including for instance to simply show Christ in our actions, as one example (but not the only one).

I do think I understand where you're coming from. I've battled a lot with mongerism and synergism. I suppose taking either to an extreme would result in both the excesses of certain 'frozen chosen' Calvinists, who are flaccid and useless in missions, or the IFB excesses I alluded to earlier, where all you have to do is pray a prayer, and people think you're saved. Scripture would indicate it's not that simple either way, and both extremes seem to manipulate God, and into convincing themselves of their own salvation security through shallow means.

Lutherans do think you can fall away, which makes them differ from Calvs, who believe in OSAS. Magisterial use of reasoning causes people to think that it has to be either/or, that it's either total mongerism or total synergism.

It's a hard topic for sure.
 
Upvote 0

Newtheran

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2018
783
571
South
✟26,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Another challenge is the influence of decision theology (Arminianism) in most Christian branches. I have many issues with Calvinists, but one area where Luths and Calvs agree is that we don't inherently "choose" to follow God, God chooses us. This mindset is completely foreign to most other American Protestants, who think you choose God and that you need to be running into every street corner to make converts pick God. The difference between the Lutheran view of monergism and, say, the independent fundamental Baptist view of getting everyone to do the Romans road, "win souls," and make a public proclamation to faith, is immense (I always found it funny that the IFB were naive enough to think they could win massive multitudes to faith with the right gimmicks, and yet their churches seldom grew -- they are oblivious to the fact that most Americans are heading secular, and few secular men want to lead, while few women want to dress in ankle-length skirts -- you can't be separate from the world, while thinking you are also converting the world en masse; there is no Biblical or contextual precedent for this, and it also violates basic empirical logic!).

Good observation.

- Let's wrap our religion in a mosh pit wrapper, maybe that will fill the seats.
- Let's wrap our religion in a leftist wrapper, maybe that will fill the seats.
- Let's wrap our religion in a 1950s Beaver Cleaver wrapper, maybe that will fill the seats.
 
Upvote 0

actionsub

Sir, this is a Wendy's...
Jun 20, 2004
899
296
Belleville, IL
✟57,245.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Anyway a decade of so, I did some reading on Lutheranism, and I read in Germany in the 1800s there was a merger of the one of the big Lutheran bodies with the German Calvinists, and that merger had a lot of ramifications for Lutheranism in American, where Lutheranism became Calvinized.

There is something to that, but the practice of Lutheran pastors wearing suits as opposed to clerical garb for a time came more from a post-WW2 trend in the States toward moving the church toward a business paradigm.

As for the German merger of the Lutheran body with the Reformed Calvinists, many of them came to the states, particularly the Midwest centered on the St. Louis area. Those churches maintained their own identity, calling themselves the "Evangelical & Reformed Church" (E&R). The E&R denomination lasted until 1957, when in the interest of ecumenical partnership they merged with the Congregationalists. Today you know those Calvinized Lutherans as part of the United Church of Christ.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: tampasteve
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,250
✟816,630.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
<Snip>

But, while Lutherans shared some of the problems of Catholics (i.e. they mistakenly assumed they would be allowed more autonomy than was the case, and felt cultural pressure to conform) and some of the problems of mainstream Protestantism (i.e. getting dragged into the political climate of thinking the U.S. was the New Israel), I'm wondering if there is anything unique to Lutheran theology that poses challenges unique to Lutheranism.

Any thoughts?
Where do we start?

At the risk of over simplification the Colonial sense of freedom, and later the constitutional freedoms post Revolution resulted in the "Congregationalist" polity of what is now LCMS, that historically would have been Episcopal.
The puritanical protestant concept of pietism was legitimized, and within some groups ran rampant.
The Crypto Calvinist Controversies that lead to syncratism and even universalism of late were also a result.
Likewise, not being "Catholic" Lutherans were painted with the same brush as the rest of Protestantism; and then often vilified for their "catholic" like traditions and practices; resulting in further degradation of both practice and theology.

My Alsatian ancestors immigrated to the US, but for these reasons the majority remained there only a short while, seeing similar attitudes among the protestant groups in the US and their negative influence on the Lutheran communities in PA, that they moved to British North America (now Canada) in the 1820s. Their congregations remained "Free" until eventually joining the LCMS in the 1960s. These congregations are now Lutheran Church Canada, in fellowship with the LCMS.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LizaMarie
Upvote 0