I walked out of church today

[FireDragon76]

Seems strange that a Lutheran pastor would speak of Lutherans being allergic to the concept of virtue. Luther certainly doesn't seem adverse to talking about it in his own ways. My reading of Luther (which, I suppose to be honest is still pretty limited) tends to showcase a man with two central concerns: The Christian having assurance and confidence on the basis of faith in Christ, and the Christian actually living out their Christian duty.

-CryptoLutheran

I would say virtue is potentially important from a Lutheran POV, because people that are not virtuous tend to cause problems for other people, sometimes very serious. Sort of a "leave the world in a better place than you found it", or at least, to be harmless (which sometimes isn't taken seriously enough by Christians, but is more of an emphasis of Buddhists or Jains)? One could do that in complete isolation, living as a hermit. No busywork required. I think Luther overlooked that, when he criticized monasticism.

 

[FireDragon76]

On a lighter note, perhaps Luther would be rolling over in his grave if he saw this:

Actually, one of my favorite Lutheran hymns was written in St. Augustine House, by a guest:

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've actually been very interested in the human potential movement. Do you think that is something Lutherans could dialogue with? What are our duties where humanity is at each others throats on board the Titanic: we are all arguing whether there is an iceberg ahead at all, and we've divided up into tribes that see the world in very different ways? Isn't there a virtue or duty in finding a way to transcend the morass?

Also, if Luther wasn't allergic to virtue, why are Lutheran ethics typically expressed in terms of abstract, universal moral duties? This is not how virtue ethics works, generally speaking. I am particularly interested in the concept of "ethics of care", as I believe it closely matches many of the great teachers of human history, such as Confucius, Buddha, and Jesus.... as well as many contemporary feminist ethicists.

The issue, as I see it, is avoiding the pitfalls of homo incurvatus, the inwardly-curved man with its me-centered sense of false righteousness, "I do good and thus I become good", wherein this is sin. And instead take a deeply Christocentric and Incarnational view: God was in Christ reconciling the world. Thus the role of virtue, the role of good works, of active righteousness (as opposed to the imputed righteousness of faith) can never be understood in the vertical dynamic of ourselves before God; but rather ourselves in the midst of the world, ourselves in relation to our neighbors.

In Christ we behold God and God's understanding of Himself (a phrase I am borrowing from Catholic writer Herbert McCabe) as the Word become flesh. So what is God's disposition toward creation, it's love. What then is to be the Christian's way of living? Well what does St. Paul say? "To live is Christ and to die is gain", we are called to be imitators of Christ, imitators of God. Here the language of kenosis and real kenotic theology matters (as opposed to false kenoticism): Kenosis, emptying, the willing embrace of humility by God the Son in taking upon Himself our impoverished humanity in its weakness and mortality and fragility tells us something about God: God is the One who gives Himself away, who empties Himself, who "though being God by nature did not exploit His equality with God". God doesn't exploit, but gives Himself away.

So the Christian life too is supposed to be kenotic, "Have this same disposition/attitude/mindset that was in Christ Jesus" is how Paul begins his statement in Philippians 2. He did not exploit His glory, but came in weakness and humility, as the Servant of servants ("the Son of Man did not come to be served, but rather to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many" Mark 10:45).

"Take up your cross and follow Me" is Christ's command and charge to all who would be His disciples. To take up cross is to live in this world, to "live as Christ", to live a cruciform life as a servant of the Servant, a follower of the Master who gave His life away freely in love and humility.

As I see it and understand it, this is simply sanctification, the continued work of God by the power of the Spirit to conform us to Christ's image. To be conformed to Christ is not about glory, but the cross. The cross is what marks our lives as Christians, and paradoxically the cross becomes a joy to us. I think of Bonhoeffer here who said, "To endure the cross is not a tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ."

By joy I don't mean sunshine, rainbows, and happy feelings. But rather we learn to treasure the cross, as God continues the good work in us we are being changed; not in the sense of progressing toward glory; but in that we learn as Paul did, that Christ's "power is made evident in weakness". Our world is being turned upside-down. The kingdom of God is where the least is called greatest after all.

That is, the role of ethics, the role of virtue, the role of good works--all of these things--are in the cross-centered life which Christ says we are to come and have as His disciples. At no point in this am I becoming "the good", I am not rising upward in glory; but rather I am descending downward toward humility, lowliness, i.e. the cross. And yet it is precisely this downwardness, this lowliness, this weakness, this cross that God has said He Himself identifies with and as in the Person of Jesus Christ our Lord.

God does not say, "I am up here in glory, come and find Me", but "Here I am, in brokenness and suffering, I have found you." So that the life we have received from God as a gift through faith, continues to be that gift even as we learn to give ourselves away. Grace suffuses the Christian life toward love.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

The issue, as I see it, is avoiding the pitfalls of homo incurvatus, the inwardly-curved man with its me-centered sense of false righteousness, "I do good and thus I become good", wherein this is sin. And instead take a deeply Christocentric and Incarnational view: God was in Christ reconciling the world. Thus the role of virtue, the role of good works, of active righteousness (as opposed to the imputed righteousness of faith) can never be understood in the vertical dynamic of ourselves before God; but rather ourselves in the midst of the world, ourselves in relation to our neighbors.

In Christ we behold God and God's understanding of Himself (a phrase I am borrowing from Catholic writer Herbert McCabe) as the Word become flesh. So what is God's disposition toward creation, it's love. What then is to be the Christian's way of living? Well what does St. Paul say? "To live is Christ and to die is gain", we are called to be imitators of Christ, imitators of God. Here the language of kenosis and real kenotic theology matters (as opposed to false kenoticism): Kenosis, emptying, the willing embrace of humility by God the Son in taking upon Himself our impoverished humanity in its weakness and mortality and fragility tells us something about God: God is the One who gives Himself away, who empties Himself, who "though being God by nature did not exploit His equality with God". God doesn't exploit, but gives Himself away.

So the Christian life too is supposed to be kenotic, "Have this same disposition/attitude/mindset that was in Christ Jesus" is how Paul begins his statement in Philippians 2. He did not exploit His glory, but came in weakness and humility, as the Servant of servants ("the Son of Man did not come to be served, but rather to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many" Mark 10:45).

"Take up your cross and follow Me" is Christ's command and charge to all who would be His disciples. To take up cross is to live in this world, to "live as Christ", to live a cruciform life as a servant of the Servant, a follower of the Master who gave His life away freely in love and humility.

As I see it and understand it, this is simply sanctification, the continued work of God by the power of the Spirit to conform us to Christ's image. To be conformed to Christ is not about glory, but the cross. The cross is what marks our lives as Christians, and paradoxically the cross becomes a joy to us. I think of Bonhoeffer here who said, "To endure the cross is not a tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ."

By joy I don't mean sunshine, rainbows, and happy feelings. But rather we learn to treasure the cross, as God continues the good work in us we are being changed; not in the sense of progressing toward glory; but in that we learn as Paul did, that Christ's "power is made evident in weakness". Our world is being turned upside-down. The kingdom of God is where the least is called greatest after all.

That is, the role of ethics, the role of virtue, the role of good works--all of these things--are in the cross-centered life which Christ says we are to come and have as His disciples. At no point in this am I becoming "the good", I am not rising upward in glory; but rather I am descending downward toward humility, lowliness, i.e. the cross. And yet it is precisely this downwardness, this lowliness, this weakness, this cross that God has said He Himself identifies with and as in the Person of Jesus Christ our Lord.

God does not say, "I am up here in glory, come and find Me", but "Here I am, in brokenness and suffering, I have found you." So that the life we have received from God as a gift through faith, continues to be that gift even as we learn to give ourselves away. Grace suffuses the Christian life toward love.

-CryptoLutheran

Have you read any of Bonhoeffer's later works? I don't think he would be so confident in those assertions. He was critical of pessimistic anthropologies or presenting a simplistic view of the human condition. He had especially harsh contempt for those that went around trying to tell happy, sociable people they were in fact sick, whether they be clergy, existentialists, or psychoanalysts of his day (he had surprising pushback against Barth's positive view of revelation, in light of that).

You have presented a theological elegy about traditional Lutheran views of salvation, but this isn't really a basis for dialogue for people that are interested in the possibilities of human beings achieving greater self-actualization and fulfillment in this life. I do not see see people engaged in this sort of thing as "curved in on themselves", quite the opposite. Many are quite sociable and open-minded.

This pessimistic anthropology you are talking about doesn't seem borne out in the real world, and it makes me think what is being discussed is simply unreal. Sure, there are many selfish people in the world, but there are also some people who realize how self-limiting being wrapped in on ones own ruminations - spiritual, transformative experiences are in no way confined to people that read the Bible through 16th century confessions, let alone Christianity.

Classical Lutheranism basically takes the pathologies of one particular personality type, and absolutizes them as the entire human predicament. This is especially obvious to me as I study theories of personality development over the lifespan. We are not all as Luther was, preoccupied with a drive towards perfectionism. Human beings are more complicated than that. This is one area I find the American Lutherans strangely silent on, and it's a weakness in this religious tradition. Other faith traditions like Catholics or the Reformed engage in serious dialogue with the world, and with other religions, but I haven't heard much of this from a Lutheran perspective, especially in the US.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's a link to Pastor Lars Hammar's lecture series on Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison. The series gets better as he delves deeper into the lectures:

I like what Pastor Lars is doing with his church in Phoenix, at least I think it is a step in a positive direction. Lutherans need to do alot of deconstruction. What I am seeing is dysfunctional among many Lutherans, and simply unreal (I'm looking at the stuff coming out of Luther Seminary in particular). It's an incoherent mix of arcane religious assertions and a hodge podge of attempts at negotiating an Erastian ethic towards the magisterial intellectualism of the post-liberal, secular order, and pretending that is adequate for 21st century America's spiritual needs. When in fact I think it is the stuff of tragic eulogies at funerals.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've always had a hard time with the "don't give to homeless people" language I've heard many times over my life. If I want to give I'll give, and the Scriptures praise cheerful giving as a virtue.

One of the issues I think is modern western culture has been shaped by certain ideas which have tended toward the viewing of the homeless and most vulnerable poor as parasitic and a nuissance.

I had trouble explaining to the pastor why virtue has nothing to do with "earning heaven". It's about bringing a little bit of heaven into earthly life. There is an aesthetic dimension to Christian virtue, a deep harmony between truth, goodness, and beauty. I pointed out to the pastor there are many people in the congregation whose families struggle with mental illness, and I myself have overcome several mental illnesses in my life, such as depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, by changing the way I relate to life. Part of that is reflected in the spirit of generosity I wish to embody, because it is not merely good to do so, but also because it is a reflection of the beauty of truth. It allows ordinary life to become a touchstone of the transcendent. And a church of all places should be the last to censure a giving spirit.

I guess I am going to have to kick the dust off my feet and move on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I had trouble explaining to the pastor why virtue has nothing to do with "earning heaven". It's about bringing a little bit of heaven into earthly life. There is an aesthetic dimension to Christian virtue, a deep harmony between truth, goodness, and beauty. I pointed out to the pastor there are many people in the congregation whose families struggle with mental illness, and I myself have overcome several mental illnesses in my life, such as depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, by changing the way I relate to life. Part of that is reflected in the spirit of generosity I wish to embody, because it is not merely good to do so, but also because it is a reflection of the beauty of truth. It allows ordinary life to become a touchstone of the transcendent. And a church of all places should be the last to censure a giving spirit.

I guess I am going to have to kick the dust off my feet and move on.

It's this kind of thing in the churches, of whatever denomination, that has always had me engaging 'the Faith' beginning with somone like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and/or Pascal rather than with Luther or Calvin.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's this kind of thing in the churches, of whatever denomination, that has always had me engaging 'the Faith' beginning with somone like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and/or Pascal rather than with Luther or Calvin.

I think the problem is the over-reliance upon 17th century Scholasticism, and not enough emphasis on experiential religion. Some Lutherans in particular have harsh views of mysticism, and simply think about our relationship to God in very harsh legal terms. As a result, they think about theology and ethics like a lawyer would- looking for a legal loophole or trick of rhetoric that takes the power even out of Christ's words. This is nothing but pharisaical casuitry, as far as I am concerned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the problem is the over-reliance upon 17th century Scholasticism, and not enough emphasis on experiential religion. Some Lutherans in particular have harsh views of mysticism, and simply think about our relationship to God in very harsh legal terms. As a result, they think about theology and ethics like a lawyer would- looking for a legal loophole or trick of rhetoric that takes the power even out of Christ's words. This is nothing but pharisaical casuitry, as far as I am concerned.

That could be true, but it might also depend on the 'kind' of experiential religion we're talking about.

Take for instance the Wesleyan strain of theology and what has been multiply derived out of that through various stages over the past 100 years, especially in the U.S. I'm not sure all of that is especially helpful either; it is, and has been, very popular though.

 

[FireDragon76]

That could be true, but it might also depend on the 'kind' of experiential religion we're talking about.

Take for instance the Wesleyan strain of theology and what has been multiply derived out of that through various stages over the past 100 years, especially in the U.S. I'm not sure all of that is especially helpful either; it is, and has been, very popular though.

I grew up in fairly typical northern United Methodist churches that were once German Brethren (my family on my mom and dad's side were mostly all Brethren, if they were particularly religious at all). There's alot to commend in that approach, it was communal, churchy, and socially responsible. It was far from the typical American Evangelicalism that young people are fleeing in droves now.

 

[FireDragon76]

I talked to another Lutheran pastor in Orlando yesterday. He was friendly enough, and tried to help me see a different point of view, but I remain unconvinced this is good, Christ-centered spiritual formation. It feels more like coddling people's prejudices.

 

[The Liturgist]

I walked out of our Lutheran (ELCA) church this evening, at the evening service (we have been visiting the local UCC church in the mornings). The service began with the pastor introducing the security team leader advising us to not give money to homeless people, because it might attract more or them, and they might use the money to buy alcohol. My blood ran cold, and I just couldn't participate in the service after that, and I left.

As some might know here, I've had issues with how this church handles "security" before. But I think this crosses a line, for many reasons. For one thing, I took an ethics class in college, and one of the lesson plans involved listening to C. Everett Koop discussing ethics with a group of people, and Dr. Koop said he wouldn't have a problem ethically with giving money to somebody who might be an alcoholic, because he understood that alcohol withdrawl can be dangerous . I also think it's incredibly judgemental to assume that a homeless person is an alcoholic and/or wouldn't know how to use the money wisley, like its a subtle denial of the dignity of homeless people in general. It's just wrong on many levels. Jesus said to give to the person who asks, after all.


So, disappointed, I left at the beginning of the service with my S.O. I am not sure what to do now, and I am looking for advice.


I give money to homeless people all the time, everybody in my family does. A year ago I gave money to somebody nonchalantly who was begging at a fast food restaurant. I didn't even consider myself a Christian really anymore, but I just did it out of compassion, without any thought. I wonder how people can be so afraid to help other people and cut them a break? Why are homeless people so scary to some people? I just believe in giving because I want to be the change in the world I want to see. I don't want to be a fearful person who says "no" to somebody else that "makes me uncomfortable". However much discomfort I feel, I'm betting the other person is feeling alot more in asking for money.

You did the right thing. Our faith is also greatly aided by giving alms to the homeless, which I do, as well as buying them food, even during times when my finances have been dire.

Presently I am working on a proposal for a charitable project to help people exiled by the FLDS community in Colorado City, Utah. The FLDS women are forced to wear 1950s clothing and hairstyles, and to keep the ratio of women to men at a level that will support polygamy, teenage boys and young men are routinely forced out and wind up homeless on the streets of St. George, where they are taken advantage of by the criminal element.

 

[lismore]

So, disappointed, I left at the beginning of the service with my S.O. I am not sure what to do now, and I am looking for advice.

Hello FireDragon. I hope you're well. The church I attend is in an inner city area in Scotland, an area rife with drugs and crime. I hear what you're saying. Perhaps there's a balance to be struck. As Christians we can't turn anyone away who comes looking for help and we are to share the gospel, verbally and practically with all. On the other hand a largish church with many vulnerable people, children etc, the church has a duty to protect it's people. Several people on the fringes of the congregation have been unmasked as predators, paedophiles and rapists and have gone to prison. Parents worry about their children, one scandal involving a predator could wreck the church. And in these post-covid days finding people to serve in ministries can be a challenge, finding members of the congregation willing to man the doors during the service and speak to potentially anyone can be tricky. But I think what you're describing, the church went too far, the balance was broken. God Bless You

 

[Laureate]

I walked out of our Lutheran (ELCA) church this evening, at the evening service (we have been visiting the local UCC church in the mornings). The service began with the pastor introducing the security team leader advising us to not give money to homeless people, because it might attract more or them, and they might use the money to buy alcohol. My blood ran cold, and I just couldn't participate in the service after that, and I left.

As some might know here, I've had issues with how this church handles "security" before. But I think this crosses a line, for many reasons. For one thing, I took an ethics class in college, and one of the lesson plans involved listening to C. Everett Koop discussing ethics with a group of people, and Dr. Koop said he wouldn't have a problem ethically with giving money to somebody who might be an alcoholic, because he understood that alcohol withdrawl can be dangerous . I also think it's incredibly judgemental to assume that a homeless person is an alcoholic and/or wouldn't know how to use the money wisley, like its a subtle denial of the dignity of homeless people in general. It's just wrong on many levels. Jesus said to give to the person who asks, after all.


So, disappointed, I left at the beginning of the service with my S.O. I am not sure what to do now, and I am looking for advice.


I give money to homeless people all the time, everybody in my family does. A year ago I gave money to somebody nonchalantly who was begging at a fast food restaurant. I didn't even consider myself a Christian really anymore, but I just did it out of compassion, without any thought. I wonder how people can be so afraid to help other people and cut them a break? Why are homeless people so scary to some people? I just believe in giving because I want to be the change in the world I want to see. I don't want to be a fearful person who says "no" to somebody else that "makes me uncomfortable". However much discomfort I feel, I'm betting the other person is feeling alot more in asking for money.

What potential evil shall we permit to move or effect us in such a way that results in us being less than we can be?

And at which time ought we to resort to addressing a potential problem with a Worldly Righteousness, and lose focus of the things which please our Maker?

Let us pray that they be given a repentant heart, for those who sit in the seat of Moshé and turn off righteous individuals, are subject to stand amongst the most condemned.

Yea, neither let us judge them, but rather avail ourselves to offer a better solution, for even I cannot help but imagine an ulterior unjust reason for making such a decree, not a pretty picture, and yet I know very well that they may be innocent of such a potential crime/sin, nevertheless their actions naturally draw suspicion, which we do good to resist, and follow your example instead of theirs.