Lutherans for Racial Justice I February 1, 2023

UPDATES:

February 2: LCMS President Matthew Harrison released this statement, announcing that CPH would continue sales and distribution of the new Annotated Large Catechism.

February 7: Christianity Today published this article summarizing the controversy.

February 22: The LCMS' Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) released this statement affirming the essays in the Annotated Large Catechism.

The following is an overview of what led to the halt in distribution.

--

In Netflix’s new murder mystery, Glass Onion, a seemingly random group of people are invited to a private island for a luxury getaway. But the story takes a turn when it becomes crystal clear that one of the guests is laying a complex web of deceit that could cost everyone involved their livelihoods – and possibly their lives.

Much like the film, an Agatha Christie-style mystery has beset The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS).

Two weeks ago, the official publishing arm of the LCMS, Concordia Publishing House (CPH), began selling a new edition of a Lutheran staple: Luther's Large Catechism: with Annotations and Contemporary Applications.

The book, which was produced by the Synod, received a robust rollout, heartily endorsed in a Forward by the current LCMS president, Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison:

Upon the sale of the catechism’s digital version, controversy erupted as blogs, social media accounts, and Amazon reviews, many anonymous, began taking issue with the essays that President Harrison had touted in his Forward.

The complaints challenged how Martin Luther’s writings were being applied to contemporary issues such as race, science, gun rights, sexuality, and gender, among others. Some of the more extreme voices called for the firing or ex-communication of authors, and for President Harrison to be voted out of office in this year’s upcoming election. This last point is particularly relevant, as all LCMS congregations have until February 28 to nominate presidential challengers.

On January 22, the criticisms gained broader attention after a negative review of the catechism was posted on Gottesdienst (a blog edited by at least eight LCMS pastors), which was concerned with the new edition’s “woke-ism” and “disturbing amount of political leftism.” They continue, “It is as though the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) has wheeled a Trojan horse to the doorway of the Purple Palace (a common nickname for the Synod’s St. Louis’ offices), and Missouri is dispatching a welcoming committee and sending a thank you card for the gift.”

The very next day, President Harrison asked CPH to “cease distribution” of the catechism, announcing the action via the LCMS’ official Facebook account: “This will allow us time to evaluate the comments and critiques received and revisit our doctrinal review process, which is my responsibility.” For those unfamiliar, all Synodical materials are subjected to doctrinal review to ensure that they are in alignment with the church body’s view of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

President Harrison’s actions were subsequently met with praise from those who had previously called for his removal.

As a result of the book’s suspension, it has been difficult for many to weigh the complaints against the essays themselves. Fortunately, Lutherans for Racial Justice (LRJ) purchased a copy before publication ceased. In an attempt to help inform the average Lutheran, we’re going to do our best to summarize several of the essays in question as well as the critiques, adding context where helpful. For LRJ’s purposes, the most relevant essays are the three regarding race and social justice. We’ll save the other topics for others to unpack.

Our only aim is to provide information where it might not otherwise be available.

As Glass Onion’s Detective Benoit Blanc says:

Unless where necessary, we won’t be referencing blogs or social media accounts by name in an attempt to avoid further escalation of the conflict. Simple internet searches will easily turn up further reading, should you desire it. Our goal isn’t to assign blame, but to summarize the events as best we can.

Before analyzing the essays relevant to LRJ, it is worth noting that mounting critiques have not been reserved for a narrow set of extreme voices who somehow slipped through Synod's review process. Instead, the criticisms seem to be generously inclusive, spreading to some of The LCMS' longest-serving, faithful Lutherans.

For example, Rev. Dr. Joel Biermann of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis contributed an essay on Martin Luther’s explanation of the Fifth Commandment.

The full text of the essay’s conclusion reads:

“Finally, the recognition of a legitimate place for the use of the sword within God’s plan for His creation is not a license for any Christian to use the sword for any reason unilaterally deemed legitimate and necessary. And it certainly does not provide a scriptural foundation for a right to bear arms. Lethal force, Luther consistently taught, is rightly used only by the one placed into the Amt (or office) of authority in the state. It is never exercised for the sake of self, but always and only for the sake of the neighbor.”

On social media and in blogs, some asserted that the essay abandons politically conservative Lutherans by denying that the Bible endorses the second amendment.

Rev. Dr. Richard J. Serina Jr., the Associate Executive Director of the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), wrote another piece that has received ire. In an essay on Article I of the Apostles Creed, Dr. Serina writes:

“Like the creeds, Genesis has no interest in scientific theories. It does not seek to explain in scientific detail how God made all things, but rather that He made all things by His almighty Word and what that means for how we view the world and everything in it.”

Some on social media claimed that this essay was a rejection of Biblical literalism, trading Genesis’ historical veracity for metaphor or poetry.

Beyond the content of the essays, critical voices have also questioned the legitimacy of several authors, namely due to their gender (at least four of the contributors are women) or their LCMS pedigree (two contributors are formerly members of the ELCA, including the late James Nestigen, who recently passed).

Rev. Lattimore writes on Martin Luther’s explanation of the Fifth Commandment, “We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need,” going on to apply Luther’s words and Scripture’s teachings to a relevant contemporary manifestation of hate: racism.

In addition to quoting scripture and the Lutheran Study Bible, Rev. Lattimore quotes German Lutheran pastor, Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said, “The church has an unconditional obligation toward the victims of any societal order, even if they do not belong to the Christian community.”

Throughout the piece, Rev. Lattimore leans heavily on Luther’s own words:

“If you see anyone innocently sentenced to death or in similar distress, and do not save him, although you know ways and means to do so, you have killed him. It will not work for you to make the excuse that you did not provide any help, counsel, or aid to harm him. For you have withheld your love from him and deprived him of the benefit by which his life would have been saved.”

In closing, Lattimore says:

He again quotes Scripture, concluding with an excerpt from The Lutheran Study Bible: 

“Our heart condemns us when we look at our brother, see his needs, and yet excuse ourselves from acting in love…Heavenly Father, forgive my lack of real love for my brothers and sisters, and enable me to love everyone as Jesus has loved me. Amen.”

With all that said, the critiques themselves aren’t aimed at the body of this essay, but at a single footnote.

In the essay, Lattimore says, “The church has once again grappled with how to respond to calls for racial reconciliation after a number of recent events.” That sentence's footnote goes on to clarify the "recent events" in question:

“The deaths of a number of unarmed Black citizens at the hands of white individuals or police officers sparked widespread protests and turmoil in recent years and especially in 2020. Many churches sought ways to promote racial justice and healing.”

Gottesdienst called this seemingly innocent overview a “leftist interpretation” of events. The blog also took issue with the capitalization of “Black” vs. “white." While this capitalization is in line with current AP style and publishing standards (“capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs”), it is our understanding that CPH's style guide recommends using lowercase for both, while Chicago style recommends using uppercase for both. In any case, a choice seems to have been made by the editors or publisher or both, welcoming The LCMS to grammar debates that are common in the worlds of journalism, literature, and academia.

Following Luther’s lead, Dr. Nunes turns his attention to covetousness that stretches beyond the more frequently discussed, visible instances of petty theft:

“Across a myriad of social strata, Luther points to the strategies employed to covetously ‘get possession of another’s property wrongfully.’ From the blatant misappropriation of goods to more subtle, socially acceptable doings performed within the legal system, no one gets off the hook. Luther’s bold witness compels twenty-first-century Christians to consider the root of evil and to reconsider their explicit and implicit perpetuation of unequal opportunity.”

Dr. Nunes goes on to explore Luther’s 16th-century understanding of how coveting takes shape in society, quoting his condemnation of “unscrupulous business practices,” those who “twist and stretch the law to suit their cause,” and the temptation to “alienate anything from your neighbor.” Nunes then applies those to contemporary contexts, culminating with his personal witness of gentrification in present-day Brooklyn, New York.

Critics have accused the author of employing Marxism and Critical Race Theory.

The essay concludes with Luther’s warning against coveting righteousness, including those whom Luther refers to as “the most pious, who want to be praised and to be called honest and upright people.”

Dr. Nunes follows that thread:

Dr. Sánchez’s essay is an academic exploration of social justice and the commandments as explained by Luther. Critics seem to be stumbling over his use of the term “social justice,” which some circles see as politically charged. But in reading the full piece, it’s clear that Dr. Sánchez aims to demonstrate how Luther’s teachings avert the potential pitfalls of social justice, as he equates social justice with active righteousness:

“The work of social justice is not equivalent to the Gospel of justification by faith. However, in the Christian’s life, both kinds of righteousness interact so that the righteousness of good works the Spirit brings about in and through us flows from the righteousness of faith the Spirit effects for our benefit through Gospel proclamation.”

After unpacking the context of Luther’s day and the catechism’s explanations of the commandments, Sánchez concludes by writing:

Reasonable people might agree about how Luther’s Large Catechism was understood or applied in its day, yet disagree about how it applies in our time and cultures. In fact, many in the LRJ community have differing opinions on the essays in this edition, having prompted many thought-provoking conversations. To that end, we appreciate Synod’s ambitions in the creation of this edition, as well as the contributors’ attempts to wrestle with complex contemporary issues, whether or not we agree with every conclusion.

So what’s driving the fiery outrage at this book?

Or perhaps more salient: why was the catechism endorsed and then pulled from distribution?

Will any of this have an impact on the upcoming Presidential election?

Hopefully we’ll get some answers to those questions soon. In the meantime, we’ll heed the words of Luther, which President Harrison quoted in the conclusion of his endorsement of the Annotated Large Catechism:

“Therefore, I again beg all Christians–especially pastors and preachers–not to think of themselves as doctors too soon and imagine that they know everything. (For imagination, like unshrunk cloth, will fall far short of the measure.) Instead, they should daily exercise themselves well in these studies and constantly use them. Furthermore, they should guard with all care and diligence against the poisonous infection of contentment and vain imagination, but steadily keep on reading, teaching, learning, pondering, and meditating on the catechism.”

Hopefully, as with the mystery of the center of Glass Onion, the layers of this catechism controversy will soon be peeled back to reveal the truth at the center of it all.

--

For further information about this matter, we encourage you to inquire with The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod: https://www.lcms.org/contact-us