There and back again: My spiritual journey these past ten years, part IV

By this time, it probably won’t surprise the reader that I didn’t know much about Lutheranism growing up. I probably figured they were similar to the Methodists or Presbyterians in that they had a more “formal” worship and baptized infants. It was in reading about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, however, that I increasingly became aware that Lutheranism really was pretty different from the rest of Protestantism. I knew that Anglicanism was to some extent as well. But orthodox Anglicanism was never a viable possibility where we lived. Today, Anglicanism seems too Reformed to boot. At any rate, I soon began exploring Lutheranism. I first went to a local Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) congregation on my own. Eventually, my wife came with me.

To my surprise, I really liked what I found in Lutheranism. At first, I saw it as a possible temporary compromise. Then I began reading Lutherans such as Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz, Francis Pieper and contemporary authors such as Gene Edward Veith. Martin Chemnitz was especially influential upon me. I also read more about the history of the Reformation and read the Luther’s catechism and the Lutheran confessions. As Veith put it, Lutheranism really is the best of Catholicism and the best of Protestantism. Lutheranism had pretty much everything that I had come to see as essential and that had attracted me to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the first place, namely tradition, liturgical worship, and a belief in the real presence and baptismal regeneration. Lutheran worship was beautiful and the Lutherans have a rich musical tradition in the way of hymns and musicians such as Bach and Handel.

While Lutheranism contained many of the best elements of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it also maintained the best elements of Protestantism so to speak. The two LCMS congregations where we lived had good preaching and Bible studies. More importantly, they preached the Gospel very clearly. Now the reader, especially a reader who is Protestant may be wondering, why wasn’t the Gospel the main issue for you in the first place? What about things in the Catholic Church that obscure the Gospel such as indulgences or the teachings of the Council of Trent? Or what about the Eastern Orthodox position on original sin?

Looking back, it is amazing that I didn’t take the issue of soteriology a lot more seriously. But I was so desperate to leave Evangelicalism that I was willing to rationalize a whole host of things. Moreover, it’s not as if modern American Evangelicalism clearly believes, teaches, and confesses salvation by grace alone and justification by faith alone. Modern American Evangelicalism is rife with Arminian revivalism. It is far more likely to feature emotional, revivalistic services (and “seeker sensitive” worship is often just updated revivalism) in which people are implored to come down and “make a decision for Christ.” Or, one will find a lot of pop psychology and moralistic, Christless preaching. Really, even to this day I fail to see how much of American Evangelicalism has any business accusing Catholicism or Orthodoxy of teaching “works based salvation.” At least the Catholics and Orthodox have the creed and the sacraments, which point one to Christ.

Within American Evangelicalism, only the Reformed, which are a minority, albeit a very vocal minority, could with some plausibility assail Catholic and Orthodox soteriology. The Reformed were at least very serious and thoughtful about their theology. As I’ve mentioned before, however, I’ve never seen Reformed theology as a viable option. First, in my view the Reformed are obviously wrong about the sacraments. Their views on the Eucharist make them a bit suspect on the Incarnation while their denial of baptismal regeneration and in the case of Reformed Baptists of infant baptism make them suspect on salvation by grace alone. It’s not that the Reformed don’t believe in the Incarnation and salvation by grace alone. Rather, their theology of the sacraments are logically and most importantly Biblically inconsistent with these key doctrines.

I also found the Reformed focus on God’s sovereignty a bit bothersome. I believe that God is sovereign. Nothing happens without God willing or allowing it to happen. God’s enemies do not have the slightest chance of overcoming him. Moreover, God often uses what his enemies intend for evil and turns it into something good. I don’t deny that the Reformed make some good observations about God’s sovereignty. Nonetheless, I don’t see God’s sovereignty as his chief attribute and as the proper focus of theology and Christian life. If anything, holiness is God’s principal attribute. After all, the worshipers in the vision of heavenly worship that the Bible gives us in the sixth chapter of Isaiah and fourth chapter of Revelation cry out “holy, holy, holy!” not “sovereign, sovereign, sovereign!” God’s sovereignty seems in some cases to overshadow everything else in Reformed theology, including the work of Christ.

In the end, I’ve just never had the sovereignty bug that those who were, are, or who become Reformed seem to have. I believe God is sovereign, but I’ve never lain awake at night anguishing over this issue. I also think the Reformed draw many conclusions about God’s sovereignty that are based on philosophical speculation. The Reformed seem too uncomfortable with mystery, paradox, and seem too eager to use human reason in an attempt to resolve questions about God’s sovereignty and predestination that the Bible gives no clear answer to and that we human beings can’t completely understand in the first place. This leads them to make many “logical conclusions” about God’s sovereignty that in my view simply aren’t supported by the Scriptures. For instance, the Reformed are entirely correct about total depravity and the predestination of the elect. And while limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints may well be “logical conclusions” of total depravity, I believe that many passages in the Bible are completely contrary to these doctrines.

The problems I see with Reformed theology goes even deeper. From at least the time of the Puritans many serious Reformed Christians have agonized over whether or not they were among the elect. And if Christ only died for the elect as limited atonement teaches, one cannot tell everyone that Christ died for them. Honestly, limited atonement seems anti-Gospel to me. How one can attack things such as indulgences and Trent as soteriologically problematically only to turn around and assert limited atonement makes no sense to me. Ultimately, the Reformed take on the sacraments, the undue emphasis they place on God’s sovereignty, and doctrines such as limited atonement and double predestination undermine their soteriology, even if they do believe in salvation by grace alone and justification through faith in Christ alone. I maintain that Reformed theology is a much more serious and God-centered theology than Arminian revivalism. But what the Reformed give with one hand they often take with the other. So in the end, neither the Reformed and especially Arminian revivalism was able in my eyes to both mount a successful challenge to Catholic and Orthodox theology and present a viable alternative.

This was not the case with Lutheranism. In fact, I’ve never heard the Gospel preached and taught so clearly as in LCMS congregations. And I could take Lutheranism claims much more seriously because they didn’t have the baggage the Reformed had such as limited atonement and double predestination. Furthermore, Lutheranism actually made a stronger case than Catholicism and Orthodoxy when it came to the sacraments. In other words, as a whole Lutheranism made sense to me. Lutheran pastors, writers, and teachers firmly and convincingly taught me the demands of the law and the utter depravity and inability of humans to do good works for their salvation or to come to faith in Christ by themselves. In the end, the chief doctrines of the Reformation, sola gratia, sola fide, and sola Scriptura all registered with me within the Lutheran church and within the context of Lutheran sacramentology, worship, the Lutheran confessions, and Lutheranism’s distinction between the Law and the Gospel. In the end, I found a church with many of the positive aspects of traditional Protestantism such as good preaching and Bible studies. I also found a church with a sense of beauty and God-centered worship and with real ties to the early church and the Christian past as a whole. Most importantly, I found a church who in almost all they did focused on Christ crucified and resurrected for my sins. Faith in Christ, and Christ alone for my sins and the sins of all humanity was above all their driving focus. And this was the one thing I absolutely needed the most.