For the past several weeks, I have been debating whether or not to share my views here about this year's US presidential election. I had been leaning toward keeping quiet. At seminary I was taught that a pastor must serve and care for the whole congregation, not merely a partisan few, which would likely be the case if one came out publicly with one's political views and decisions. Inevitably such partisan sharing from the pulpit or in a Bible class would alienate a portion of one's flock. Moreover, a pastor is called to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and not to get mixed up in partisan politics. The pastor who would enter that fray could end up confusing the gospel with earthly justice or even equating the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world. (One notes, by the way, that the public positions on social issues that have been set forth by my former church body, the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, nevertheless coincide to a large extent with the platform of the Republican Party. I once heard a pre-election sermon in an LCMS congregation that seemed to assert that a vote for Ronald Reagan was a vote for God's kingdom, though the Gipper's name was never mentioned by the preacher.) Not surprising, in light of the risks, most pastors avoid giving public advice on elections. I suspect that is true for many professors, too. At the end of the term, when students fill out their course evaluations, profs can get dinged for being "too political" or "too biased." (Last spring when I again taught my course on "Christians in Nazi Germany," a few students complained that I was "clearly anti-Trump" in my responses to student questions about the similarities between statements made by him and ones that the German national-socialist leader made during his 1932 stump speeches, despite my best efforts at explaining why Mr. Trump's views do not easily fit with basic elements in classic fascism.)
Nevertheless, keeping quiet has its own risks. Such silence may suggest that Christian faith has no import for political life, that faith is "private" and not at all related to social and political life. Such silence may also contribute to the acceptance of bad behavior and to the election of individuals who are unfit for office. The fact of the matter is, Christians have a political responsibility to seek peace and justice in the world. When one follows Jesus, one does not follow with only one aspect of one's life. Christian discipleship includes the totality of one's life, hence, also the social and political realm. In fulfilling their political responsibility, Christians cannot allow themselves to be impeded by those who would limit religious faith to a supposedly private realm ("the inner life") and thus exclude social and political problems from consideration. According to Christian teaching, God seeks to preserve and serve the world through his word (centered in the gospel) and through faithful individuals who are active in love.While the church's primary task is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of eliciting faith in Christ, those who hear and receive this message in faith are then sent out into the world to participate actively in civic life. Those who are saved by grace through faith in Christ are called to seek the good of the neighbor, to work for justice, to find ways to peace, and to speak up for and act on behalf of those who are weak, vulnerable, on the fringe of society, those deprived of secular justice (i.e., equality before the law, fair economic opportunity) and civil freedom. (Cf. Helmut Gollwitzer, The Rich Christian and Poor Lazarus, trans. David Cairns [New York: MacMillan, 1970], 27.) We are to vote accordingly. (Cf. Art Simon's 2006 online article, "Thoughts for Pastors Regarding the Election," which can be read here.)
So, as Lutheran Christians like to underscore, God works in the world in two different ways: through the gospel and through the law. Stated differently, God works through faith and through love and social justice. Martin Luther described this two-fold way of God in the world as God's "right hand" and God's "left hand." God's "right hand" works through the Holy Spirit who calls us to faith in Jesus through the power of the gospel and the sacraments. The Spirit places us in a relationship with God that we ourselves could never create or sustain. That divine "right hand" focuses entirely on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, for life, and for salvation. The short hand word for this "right hand" way of God's working in the world is "gospel."
God's "left hand" works through creation and the "orderings" within it (e.g., marriage, family, government, justice system, economic life, schools, the institutional church, and so on) that allow human beings to flourish, to pursue justice, to strengthen human community, and to preserve the planet. All of the ways in which our various family and social relationships are regulated and supported are functions of God's "left hand." The short hand word for this "left hand" way of God's working in the world is "law."
While political responsibility cannot lead to the politicizing of the church, since such a confusion of gospel and law corrupts both political life and the church (and undermines the church's primary task of purely preaching the gospel), Christians must participate in helping to shape and change social and political life for the good. Yes, Christians will disagree among themselves and with their fellow citizens about the nature of that "good," about what it is, and about how best to achieve it. Still, the individual Christian must follow his or her conscience in the light of both law and gospel. He or she lives by faith in Christ and by reasoning about what will bring about the greater good in one's community and world. In other words, Christian faith is active in politics, it seeks to make wise decisions, and, at the end of the day, it takes a stand. And, of course, for the Christian, in addition to faithful "thinking" and "discerning," there is faithful praying. Faith seeks the guidance of God's Spirit in all realms of one's life, including the voting booth.
Although a slim majority of my fellow Hoosiers--many of them evangelical Christians like me--may end up giving Mr. Trump our state's electoral votes, here are the reasons why I won't be voting for him on Tuesday:
(1) Mr. Trump lacks the experience, temperament, and character to be president;
(2) He lacks the judgment and wisdom to be commander-in-chief;
(3) More specifically with respect to points #1 and #2 above, he cannot be trusted to control the country's nuclear arsenal;
(4) His rhetoric is racist, bigoted, white-nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-women, anti-LBGTQ;
(5) He promises to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans, while his trade protectionism will likely harm the poorest (his tax and spending plan, if actually implemented, would be a financial disaster);
(6) He denies global warming and will do nothing to try to curb this global issue;
(7) He has praised foreign autocrats;
(8) He has ruined several of his companies/hotels and likely paid no federal taxes for nearly two decades (although we don't know this for sure, since he's not released his tax returns).
I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I will be voting for her. Unlike Mr. Trump:
(1) Mrs. Clinton has the experience, temperament, and character to be president (despite the serious error she made in setting up a private email server, an error which she has acknowledged and learned from);
(2) She has the judgment and wisdom to be commander-in-chief (despite her actions/inactions with respect to Libya, another matter that has taught her some important lessons);
(3) She can be trusted with the country's nuclear deterrent;
(4) Her rhetoric is inclusive, embracing the country's marginalized and most vulnerable (I do wish, however, that she would return to her mid-1990s position on abortion law, which was not one of unconditional affirmation);
(5) She's a principled, center-left pragmatist (who will likely work across party lines more effectively than many other politicians);
(6) She will continue and improve many of Mr. Obama's policies (e.g., regarding health care, the environment, labor policy);
(7) She favors paid parental leave and wants to expand early-childhood education.
Of course, if Mrs. Clinton is elected, it will be better for her (and the country, frankly), if she has a Senate to work with that is controlled by her own party, even if only by a one- or two-vote margin. Indiana may play a role here, if Mr. Bayh is elected, since his election would help to secure that majority. If, however, the GOP retains control of both the House and the Senate, then it will be very difficult for Mrs. Clinton to govern. Then again, maybe she will surprise her critics by "being better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics" than they will admit (The Economist [Nov. 3, 2016], 7).
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Some Further Remarks on Dr. Ralph Bohlmann+
My friend and former colleague, Dr. Norman Metzler, with whom I served on the faculty at Concordia University, Portland, shared the following remarks with a few of his former associates after reading my earlier reflections on Dr. Ralph Bohlmann. Norm has given me permission to share his comments here.
I very much appreciate Matt Becker’s reflections on the “evolution” of Ralph Bohlmann’s positions and roles within the LCMS, particularly his gratitude to Ralph for assisting him in dealing with accusations and formal charges of false teaching in the late 90s and early 2000s. Ralph certainly was disillusioned with the right wing politics of the LCMS that drove him out of the presidency of Synod – though those same forces enabled him to be elected following the increasingly “too flexible” stances of Jack Preus before his retirement.
What Matt doesn’t mention and didn’t experience firsthand, as I did (being a considerably older colleague of Matt’s) was Ralph’s relatively “liberal” position on inter-Lutheran matters in the late 60s. Ralph had been my Lutheran Confessions professor at St Louis seminary, and we had enjoyed a cordial relationship during that time. When I decided to do graduate studies in theology at Yale Divinity School following my graduation from the seminary in 1967, it provided an opportunity to connect with Ralph and his family, since he was doing his doctoral studies at that same time at Yale (under the famous, and for the LCMS “liberal,” Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, I might add). My wife and I provided childcare for Pat and Ralph to get away at times, and we occasionally went out to eat together. I remember sitting over dinner with Ralph, Pat and my wife Mary, after Ralph had recently returned from a Lutheran Council in the USA meeting, asking him how the meeting went. Ralph very approvingly spoke of the fact that fellowship between the LCMS and ALC was coming soon, and fellowship with the LCA was not far behind. He also spoke of developments on a common Lutheran hymnal (which became the LBW). In short, it was clear at that time that Ralph was very supportive of the movement toward Lutheran unity, the goal of LCUSA. He betrayed at that time no misgivings about working toward a united Lutheranism in America.
I then left for three years to do my doctoral studies with Wolfhart Pannenberg at Munich, during the fateful period of 1968-1971. During those years Nixon and the Preus brothers were elected to leadership in the USA and the LCMS respectively, under the banner of “law and order.” Ralph returned from Yale to the seminary, and was next door neighbor to Bob Preus, now on the seminary faculty. When I returned from my studies, the seminary certification committee was still mostly interested in what I had learned from Pannenberg. But Ralph took me aside and informed me that major changes were afoot in the Synod, and I needed to proceed cautiously if I wanted to have a future in Synod. It was very clear to me that Ralph had made a major shift in at least his public stance regarding inter-Lutheran relations and critical scholarship. Now in his defense, it must be admitted that many thoughtful theological minds, like Pannenberg himself and Pastor Richard John Neuhaus in the LCMS, reacted to the seeming chaos of the late 60s and the Vietnamese War, and came down more conservatively on authority and order. Perhaps this in part might explain Ralph’s shift. However, I am convinced that the major driver was Ralph’s political ambitions; he envisioned becoming president of the seminary and eventually the Synod, and in fact played his cards just right to attain both. While we need thoughtful and educated theological leaders in the church like Ralph, I saw him carefully evading the pressing theological issues of our Synod at that time in order to position himself for those presidencies. He penned the “A Statement of Scriptural Principles” used by Jack Preus against the seminary faculty, and was conveniently away from the seminary with the CTCR when Seminex broke, and he was able to return to serve as president in the conservative rebuilding of the seminary. He stayed on the correct side of the increasingly conservative synodical forces, and was rewarded with the synodical presidency in 1981, unseating Jack Preus – who conveniently “retired.”
When Ralph, like Jack, tried to exercise some “moderation” in his synodical administration, he was in turn driven out by the forces of the fundamentalist right wing, who installed Al Barry as their champion. After working so hard to accommodate those right wing forces over the years to achieve his ambitions, Ralph was understandably disillusioned with their unceremoniously deposing him. He was bright enough that he should not have been surprised…. When one is trying to be “right,” one is never “right” enough, it seems. Hence his actual “return” to his more natively reasonable, moderate and open stance of the late 60s. Ralph always was too intellectually critical of a thinker and theologian to truly embrace the mindless fundamentalism that has overtaken the LCMS; he simply played them (and they him) for his politically ambitious purposes. His support of Matt and expressions of dissent from the LCMS in his later years attest to what I knew to be the intellectually “real” Ralph Bohlmann.
Rev. Dr. Norman Metzler
Professor of Theology Emeritus
Concordia University, Portland
“The Prequel to Matt Becker’s Reflections on Ralph Bohlmann”
What Matt doesn’t mention and didn’t experience firsthand, as I did (being a considerably older colleague of Matt’s) was Ralph’s relatively “liberal” position on inter-Lutheran matters in the late 60s. Ralph had been my Lutheran Confessions professor at St Louis seminary, and we had enjoyed a cordial relationship during that time. When I decided to do graduate studies in theology at Yale Divinity School following my graduation from the seminary in 1967, it provided an opportunity to connect with Ralph and his family, since he was doing his doctoral studies at that same time at Yale (under the famous, and for the LCMS “liberal,” Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, I might add). My wife and I provided childcare for Pat and Ralph to get away at times, and we occasionally went out to eat together. I remember sitting over dinner with Ralph, Pat and my wife Mary, after Ralph had recently returned from a Lutheran Council in the USA meeting, asking him how the meeting went. Ralph very approvingly spoke of the fact that fellowship between the LCMS and ALC was coming soon, and fellowship with the LCA was not far behind. He also spoke of developments on a common Lutheran hymnal (which became the LBW). In short, it was clear at that time that Ralph was very supportive of the movement toward Lutheran unity, the goal of LCUSA. He betrayed at that time no misgivings about working toward a united Lutheranism in America.
I then left for three years to do my doctoral studies with Wolfhart Pannenberg at Munich, during the fateful period of 1968-1971. During those years Nixon and the Preus brothers were elected to leadership in the USA and the LCMS respectively, under the banner of “law and order.” Ralph returned from Yale to the seminary, and was next door neighbor to Bob Preus, now on the seminary faculty. When I returned from my studies, the seminary certification committee was still mostly interested in what I had learned from Pannenberg. But Ralph took me aside and informed me that major changes were afoot in the Synod, and I needed to proceed cautiously if I wanted to have a future in Synod. It was very clear to me that Ralph had made a major shift in at least his public stance regarding inter-Lutheran relations and critical scholarship. Now in his defense, it must be admitted that many thoughtful theological minds, like Pannenberg himself and Pastor Richard John Neuhaus in the LCMS, reacted to the seeming chaos of the late 60s and the Vietnamese War, and came down more conservatively on authority and order. Perhaps this in part might explain Ralph’s shift. However, I am convinced that the major driver was Ralph’s political ambitions; he envisioned becoming president of the seminary and eventually the Synod, and in fact played his cards just right to attain both. While we need thoughtful and educated theological leaders in the church like Ralph, I saw him carefully evading the pressing theological issues of our Synod at that time in order to position himself for those presidencies. He penned the “A Statement of Scriptural Principles” used by Jack Preus against the seminary faculty, and was conveniently away from the seminary with the CTCR when Seminex broke, and he was able to return to serve as president in the conservative rebuilding of the seminary. He stayed on the correct side of the increasingly conservative synodical forces, and was rewarded with the synodical presidency in 1981, unseating Jack Preus – who conveniently “retired.”
When Ralph, like Jack, tried to exercise some “moderation” in his synodical administration, he was in turn driven out by the forces of the fundamentalist right wing, who installed Al Barry as their champion. After working so hard to accommodate those right wing forces over the years to achieve his ambitions, Ralph was understandably disillusioned with their unceremoniously deposing him. He was bright enough that he should not have been surprised…. When one is trying to be “right,” one is never “right” enough, it seems. Hence his actual “return” to his more natively reasonable, moderate and open stance of the late 60s. Ralph always was too intellectually critical of a thinker and theologian to truly embrace the mindless fundamentalism that has overtaken the LCMS; he simply played them (and they him) for his politically ambitious purposes. His support of Matt and expressions of dissent from the LCMS in his later years attest to what I knew to be the intellectually “real” Ralph Bohlmann.
Rev. Dr. Norman Metzler
Professor of Theology Emeritus
Concordia University, Portland
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Pericope of the Week: H. v. Campenhausen on Church Order
As readers of my blog know, I'm currently editing and co-translating the theological writings of Edmund Schlink, who taught historical and systematic theology at the University of Heidelberg in the middle decades of the last century. One of Schlink's closest friends was his colleague, Hans von Campenhausen (1903-89), who taught church history there. Indeed, both of these men helped to rebuild that university, the oldest one in Germany, in the wake of Nazism and the Second World War.
In order to gain insight into Schlink's intellectual context, I've been reading works by v. Campenhausen. Earlier today his essay on the problem of order in early Christianity and the ancient church served as part of my daily devotion. I here share a few paragraphs that will serve as this week's pericope:
"The concept of order, taxis, is extremely rare in the initial period of the church. It occurs and is stressed on only one occasion in the entire New Testament [1 Cor. 14.39-40].... Thus a decorous, orderly mode of divine worship and of conduct generally is presented as the obvious form in which the spiritual life within a community should develop, always provided that liberty in the stirring of their faith and action be not suppressed, the Spirit not 'quenched' (1 Thess. 5.19).... Peace with God and the peace that comes from God--this is what designates the true essence and power of the new thing that determines from within the church in the process of its building up and in the joint action of all its members; it is the power of love and the working of the Holy Spirit who is given by Christ and has taken possession of Christians in their wills and their being. This unique and determining element must be, above all, the main issue in the church and in preaching to those outside. All the rest becomes manifest of itself, when viewed, and only when viewed, from this standpoint.
"This indicates the point from which our problem must be viewed once and for all, from which alone it can rightly be grasped and discussed. The church does not originate through order nor live by right order, but solely in the Spirit of Christ. If, however, it lives spiritually, then it is in order and attains to order, then, through the Spirit of peace, it also sets right order in its midst, without becoming a slave to this order....
"From this standpoint we can see that it is no accident that, not only in Paul, but, as we have said, in the whole of early Christianity, so little is said about order as such or even about order for its own sake--in fact, apart from a single letter of Clement of Rome, we may confidently assert that no mention is made of it at all. There were more important, more imperative subjects of preaching, and it was realized that the preaching of Christ was the actual determinate factor. Accordingly, questions of church order only gradually, as the occasion required, and in a quite secondary manner, claimed any considerable attention.
"The main thing is that the church lives by the word, the Spirit and the peace of God, and from thence--as Paul claims--it derives and determines its order. Further, either of itself or with the help also of conscious, calm and objective reflection, it continues in order or arrives at it. The constant danger of a Catholic, or near-Catholic approach to the question of order is that of making this an absolute over against the spiritual source of life and even against the ordered life of the church, of viewing 'right' order itself as an essential thing to hold on to, and of making it, independently, part of doctrine. This produces the opposed danger of a distorted Protestantism, which thinks to serve the Spirit by minimizing order, seeing it as a matter of indifference, or even destroying it. The consequence of such a negative approach is, ultimately, a like state of dependence on a human conception of order, to which far too much weight is attached, and which is fatal to the church. There is only one power from which the church draws its vitality, namely the preaching of the word and of the truth, which brings forth faith and, through faith, the will to right action; and this in turn comprises right order. Order, like good works, always comes in the second place, and can be rightly achieved only when what is first, the unique thing (and in this sense also isolated) is asserted and willed above all else. This is the fundamental principle of the gospel, which must work itself out in life as well as in doctrine, and ensures that order is neither idolized nor rejected...."
----Hans von Campenhausen, "The Problem of Order in Early Christianity and the Ancient Church," in Tradition and the Life of the Church: Essays and Lectures on Church History, trans. A. V. Littledale (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 123-26 [trans. slightly modified].
 |
| Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen |
"The concept of order, taxis, is extremely rare in the initial period of the church. It occurs and is stressed on only one occasion in the entire New Testament [1 Cor. 14.39-40].... Thus a decorous, orderly mode of divine worship and of conduct generally is presented as the obvious form in which the spiritual life within a community should develop, always provided that liberty in the stirring of their faith and action be not suppressed, the Spirit not 'quenched' (1 Thess. 5.19).... Peace with God and the peace that comes from God--this is what designates the true essence and power of the new thing that determines from within the church in the process of its building up and in the joint action of all its members; it is the power of love and the working of the Holy Spirit who is given by Christ and has taken possession of Christians in their wills and their being. This unique and determining element must be, above all, the main issue in the church and in preaching to those outside. All the rest becomes manifest of itself, when viewed, and only when viewed, from this standpoint.
"This indicates the point from which our problem must be viewed once and for all, from which alone it can rightly be grasped and discussed. The church does not originate through order nor live by right order, but solely in the Spirit of Christ. If, however, it lives spiritually, then it is in order and attains to order, then, through the Spirit of peace, it also sets right order in its midst, without becoming a slave to this order....
"From this standpoint we can see that it is no accident that, not only in Paul, but, as we have said, in the whole of early Christianity, so little is said about order as such or even about order for its own sake--in fact, apart from a single letter of Clement of Rome, we may confidently assert that no mention is made of it at all. There were more important, more imperative subjects of preaching, and it was realized that the preaching of Christ was the actual determinate factor. Accordingly, questions of church order only gradually, as the occasion required, and in a quite secondary manner, claimed any considerable attention.
"The main thing is that the church lives by the word, the Spirit and the peace of God, and from thence--as Paul claims--it derives and determines its order. Further, either of itself or with the help also of conscious, calm and objective reflection, it continues in order or arrives at it. The constant danger of a Catholic, or near-Catholic approach to the question of order is that of making this an absolute over against the spiritual source of life and even against the ordered life of the church, of viewing 'right' order itself as an essential thing to hold on to, and of making it, independently, part of doctrine. This produces the opposed danger of a distorted Protestantism, which thinks to serve the Spirit by minimizing order, seeing it as a matter of indifference, or even destroying it. The consequence of such a negative approach is, ultimately, a like state of dependence on a human conception of order, to which far too much weight is attached, and which is fatal to the church. There is only one power from which the church draws its vitality, namely the preaching of the word and of the truth, which brings forth faith and, through faith, the will to right action; and this in turn comprises right order. Order, like good works, always comes in the second place, and can be rightly achieved only when what is first, the unique thing (and in this sense also isolated) is asserted and willed above all else. This is the fundamental principle of the gospel, which must work itself out in life as well as in doctrine, and ensures that order is neither idolized nor rejected...."
----Hans von Campenhausen, "The Problem of Order in Early Christianity and the Ancient Church," in Tradition and the Life of the Church: Essays and Lectures on Church History, trans. A. V. Littledale (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 123-26 [trans. slightly modified].
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Dr. Ralph A. Bohlmann (1932-2016)
This past Sunday was marked by the death of Dr. Ralph A. Bohlmann (b. 1932), who had served as a professor at and president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and then later as president of the LCMS (elected to four terms). His funeral service and committal were this afternoon.
For his obituary, go to here.
While many will remember Dr. Bohlmann's role in that church body’s politics and events of the late 60s and 70s, when he sided with the conservative minority against the "faculty majority" at Concordia Seminary and other “liberals” in the synod, I’d like to draw attention to the later Bohlmann that I got to know a little during the late 90s and early 2000s. Any account of his life has to take note of the changed perspective that he underwent between his "early" years and the "later," post-presidency ones. Ralph had changed, as he himself had suggested to me on more than one occasion.
How had he changed? Not in terms of his foundational confessional commitment and the basic theological understandings that he had gained through his studies at St. John's College in Winfield, Kansas, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, the University of Heidelberg, and then Yale. The contours of his theology had been profoundly and permanently shaped by such Lutheran luminaries as Jaroslav Pelikan, Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Richard Caemmerer, Edmund Schlink, and Peter Brunner. While Bohlmann's fundamental beliefs had already been firmly established through his upbringing and education in the synod, his Heidelberg and Yale experiences deepened his understanding of the Lutheran Confessions and the principles by which he thought those confessions are to be interpreted and applied today. (The influence of Schlink and Piepkorn is particularly evident in Bohlmann's 139-page monograph, Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions [St. Louis: Concordia, 1968].)
So if he had not really changed theologically, then how had he shifted? I would argue that this shift involved a temperamental transformation, the adoption of a modified attitude and demeanor, one that could be described as being a little more “open.” I think Ralph had become even more soft-spoken than he had been in the 50s and 60s, and more flexible, especially regarding matters about which the Lutheran Confessions do not directly speak, such as the ordination of women. That latter issue, in particular, he was hoping could be more openly discussed in the synod. The "hard" politics that he had helped to bring into the synod in the 60s had also turned, in part, against him, when he opposed the on-going presidency of Robert Preus at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, and this too had had its effect. Bohlmann had become very dissatisfied with the “right-wing politics” in the synod, something about which he had himself participated and had later come to regret. (For more on this, see James Burkee’s Power Politics and the Missouri Synod, and Mary Todd’s Authority Vested.)
So while there remained important and fundamental confessional/theological continuities between the “younger” Bohlmann and the more mature one--many more continuities than discontinuities--his views about a few issues, including the ordination of women, had changed over time.
I came to learn about this change first-hand, when he reached out to me in 1998. He had learned that I had come under fire for an essay on women teaching theology that I had delivered at a conference in Chicago the previous year. An LCMS pastor who had attended that conference (and secretly tape-recorded my address) brought charges against me, accusing me of teaching false doctrine. Ralph learned about the case and offered to help me navigate the bylaw procedures. So during that year we had several conversations. They weren't all about the synodical bylaws in the synod's Handbook. We also discussed the theological issues involved, and I came to learn that he himself had changed his own mind about women's ordination, at least to the point where he thought the matter was not necessarily church-dividing. (We later also discussed the issue of six-day creationism, which he personally believed and taught. While he disagreed with my critique of creationism, he did not think that what I had written on this topic rose to the level of a matter that required church discipline.)
On two other occasions he let me know that he deeply regretted how "A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles," a document he had mostly written, had been used by Jacob Preus to discipline Concordia Seminary faculty and others, and how his own actions had contributed to the loss of "so many excellent theologians." He also told me at that time that his concern for the future of academic theology in the synod was a further reason he had wanted to help me. He thought the issue of the service of women in the church needed to be addressed more deeply and discussed more openly in the synod than had so far been the case. He was fearful that had the charge against me been successful, it would have further stifled theological discussion in the synod. He offered me a vigorous defense of "the right of dissent" within the synod, which I gladly and freely adapted to my own situation.
I learned later that Ralph’s only daughter had left the LCMS, in part because of what had happened in the 70s but also in part because of the issue of women's ordination, and that she is now an ordained pastor in the United Church of Christ. I wonder to what extent her own evolution from growing up as the only daughter of an LCMS seminary professor/president to becoming a UCC pastor did not also contribute to Ralph’s own change of attitude on this issue.
Between 1998 and 2004, when I left for Valpo, Ralph and I had many conversations, usually over the phone or by email but also in person at three different synodical conventions. His knowledge of CCM opinions, his mastery of the etiology and purpose of relevant synodical bylaws and theological documents, and the development of pertinent synodical policies (particularly in the area of higher education) made him especially helpful to a young assistant professor facing off against a number of accusations and formal charges during the LCMS presidency of Al Barry. (When the initial 1998 case essentially ended because of Dr. Barry's death and the election of a new synodical president, I sent Ralph a case of Oregon wine to thank him for his help!)
I especially remember my first lunch with Ralph at the 1998 convention. Over the course of two hours we discussed several theological issues, particularly the ordination of women, the theology of the Lutheran Confessions, and the history of the LCMS, especially during the 60s and 70s. I learned a lot. It was during this lunch that he told me how much the schism in the synod had negatively affected him and his family (and obviously those who had been forced out of their positions), how he regretted some of his own actions during those years, esp. how "A Statement" was later used to discipline and dismiss most of the faculty at Concordia Seminary, and how he wished the theological disagreements at that time could have been addressed differently, less confrontationally and less politically. He seemed to me to be genuinely disturbed by what had happened. (I should add that at that same 1998 convention I had a three-hour lunch with my friend and teacher, Dr. Robert Bertram, who was one of those who had lost his position at Concordia and whose perspective on the events of those years differed significantly from Bohlmann's.)
In August of 1999 I added Ralph to Daystar, an online listserv of approximately 700 LCMS and ELCA clergy and laity (most of whom have had some connection to the LCMS), who were dissatisfied with the direction that the synod was taking under Dr. Barry. This was after Ralph had told me he had wanted to participate in our discussions. Around that same time I invited him to prepare one of the plenary addresses for our first Daystar conference in Portland, a presentation that was well received. That presentation, "LCMS 2000: Advice for an Advisory Synod," can be read here.
The views he expresses in this essay were articulated in the context of Dr. Barry's administration, about which Ralph had some significant concerns and criticisms. For example, just a few months before the Portland conference, Ralph published the following letter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Clearly, in light of his Portland address and the above letter, the Bohlmann of 1999 was at a different spot from where the Bohlmann of the mid-70s had stood. He also made this clear through his comments in the online Daystar discussions.
I last saw Ralph at the 2004 Synod convention. As we had done at the two previous conventions, we once again had lunch together. By that point he knew I was on my way to Valpo, and he wished me God's speed. On that occasion he again asked me when I was going to write “a serious book on the ordination of women." I told him that I needed first to finish my book on von Hofmann (which he kindly read that year and later told me he had liked), and to get into an academic position where I wouldn't face loss of employment for writing such a book! If I ever do get around to writing that book, I plan to dedicate it to Ralph.
Throughout the early to mid 2000s, he continued to participate sporadically in the online Daystar discussions, where some of the unhealed wounds from the 70s have occasionally been manifested. His participation there, too, suggests he had shifted from where he had been in 1973.
I'm grateful that I got to know the "later" Ralph Bohlmann. He became a trusted friend and an important adviser. While we didn't always agree on matters of theology--e.g., he was familiar with my written critique of "A Statement," [which one can read here] and my critique of six-day creationism--we respectfully agreed to disagree. He was always gracious in our conversations.
May he rest in the arms of God's mercy, in everlasting peace, and be welcomed into the glorious company of the saints in light.
For his obituary, go to here.
How had he changed? Not in terms of his foundational confessional commitment and the basic theological understandings that he had gained through his studies at St. John's College in Winfield, Kansas, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, the University of Heidelberg, and then Yale. The contours of his theology had been profoundly and permanently shaped by such Lutheran luminaries as Jaroslav Pelikan, Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Richard Caemmerer, Edmund Schlink, and Peter Brunner. While Bohlmann's fundamental beliefs had already been firmly established through his upbringing and education in the synod, his Heidelberg and Yale experiences deepened his understanding of the Lutheran Confessions and the principles by which he thought those confessions are to be interpreted and applied today. (The influence of Schlink and Piepkorn is particularly evident in Bohlmann's 139-page monograph, Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions [St. Louis: Concordia, 1968].)
So if he had not really changed theologically, then how had he shifted? I would argue that this shift involved a temperamental transformation, the adoption of a modified attitude and demeanor, one that could be described as being a little more “open.” I think Ralph had become even more soft-spoken than he had been in the 50s and 60s, and more flexible, especially regarding matters about which the Lutheran Confessions do not directly speak, such as the ordination of women. That latter issue, in particular, he was hoping could be more openly discussed in the synod. The "hard" politics that he had helped to bring into the synod in the 60s had also turned, in part, against him, when he opposed the on-going presidency of Robert Preus at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, and this too had had its effect. Bohlmann had become very dissatisfied with the “right-wing politics” in the synod, something about which he had himself participated and had later come to regret. (For more on this, see James Burkee’s Power Politics and the Missouri Synod, and Mary Todd’s Authority Vested.)
So while there remained important and fundamental confessional/theological continuities between the “younger” Bohlmann and the more mature one--many more continuities than discontinuities--his views about a few issues, including the ordination of women, had changed over time.
I came to learn about this change first-hand, when he reached out to me in 1998. He had learned that I had come under fire for an essay on women teaching theology that I had delivered at a conference in Chicago the previous year. An LCMS pastor who had attended that conference (and secretly tape-recorded my address) brought charges against me, accusing me of teaching false doctrine. Ralph learned about the case and offered to help me navigate the bylaw procedures. So during that year we had several conversations. They weren't all about the synodical bylaws in the synod's Handbook. We also discussed the theological issues involved, and I came to learn that he himself had changed his own mind about women's ordination, at least to the point where he thought the matter was not necessarily church-dividing. (We later also discussed the issue of six-day creationism, which he personally believed and taught. While he disagreed with my critique of creationism, he did not think that what I had written on this topic rose to the level of a matter that required church discipline.)
On two other occasions he let me know that he deeply regretted how "A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles," a document he had mostly written, had been used by Jacob Preus to discipline Concordia Seminary faculty and others, and how his own actions had contributed to the loss of "so many excellent theologians." He also told me at that time that his concern for the future of academic theology in the synod was a further reason he had wanted to help me. He thought the issue of the service of women in the church needed to be addressed more deeply and discussed more openly in the synod than had so far been the case. He was fearful that had the charge against me been successful, it would have further stifled theological discussion in the synod. He offered me a vigorous defense of "the right of dissent" within the synod, which I gladly and freely adapted to my own situation.
I learned later that Ralph’s only daughter had left the LCMS, in part because of what had happened in the 70s but also in part because of the issue of women's ordination, and that she is now an ordained pastor in the United Church of Christ. I wonder to what extent her own evolution from growing up as the only daughter of an LCMS seminary professor/president to becoming a UCC pastor did not also contribute to Ralph’s own change of attitude on this issue.
Between 1998 and 2004, when I left for Valpo, Ralph and I had many conversations, usually over the phone or by email but also in person at three different synodical conventions. His knowledge of CCM opinions, his mastery of the etiology and purpose of relevant synodical bylaws and theological documents, and the development of pertinent synodical policies (particularly in the area of higher education) made him especially helpful to a young assistant professor facing off against a number of accusations and formal charges during the LCMS presidency of Al Barry. (When the initial 1998 case essentially ended because of Dr. Barry's death and the election of a new synodical president, I sent Ralph a case of Oregon wine to thank him for his help!)
I especially remember my first lunch with Ralph at the 1998 convention. Over the course of two hours we discussed several theological issues, particularly the ordination of women, the theology of the Lutheran Confessions, and the history of the LCMS, especially during the 60s and 70s. I learned a lot. It was during this lunch that he told me how much the schism in the synod had negatively affected him and his family (and obviously those who had been forced out of their positions), how he regretted some of his own actions during those years, esp. how "A Statement" was later used to discipline and dismiss most of the faculty at Concordia Seminary, and how he wished the theological disagreements at that time could have been addressed differently, less confrontationally and less politically. He seemed to me to be genuinely disturbed by what had happened. (I should add that at that same 1998 convention I had a three-hour lunch with my friend and teacher, Dr. Robert Bertram, who was one of those who had lost his position at Concordia and whose perspective on the events of those years differed significantly from Bohlmann's.)
In August of 1999 I added Ralph to Daystar, an online listserv of approximately 700 LCMS and ELCA clergy and laity (most of whom have had some connection to the LCMS), who were dissatisfied with the direction that the synod was taking under Dr. Barry. This was after Ralph had told me he had wanted to participate in our discussions. Around that same time I invited him to prepare one of the plenary addresses for our first Daystar conference in Portland, a presentation that was well received. That presentation, "LCMS 2000: Advice for an Advisory Synod," can be read here.
The views he expresses in this essay were articulated in the context of Dr. Barry's administration, about which Ralph had some significant concerns and criticisms. For example, just a few months before the Portland conference, Ralph published the following letter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
A large ad in the Dec. 9 [1999] Post Dispatch and other major newspapers criticizing the international Lutheran-Roman Catholic agreement on the doctrine of justification appeared to speak for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
As the immediate past president of that church body, I want to assure readers that the ad does not present the official position of the church body on that agreement, nor was its content or placement authorized or approved by any official board, commission, council, agency or convention of the church body. In reality, the ad represents the personal opinion of the current president, and it was paid for by a private contribution, not church body funds.
I know of no one in our church body who would disagree with the ad's statement on the Gospel of Jesus Christ or its promise to work toward reconciliation among Christians. However, the fact is that thousands of members and congregations of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod are chagrined by the ad, not only because of its misleading statements about the joint agreement as well as the position of the Roman Catholic Church, but also because the ads in the public media are not a helpful way for church bodies to deal with their differences.
To all who may have been offended by this ad, I offer this unofficial but very profound apology and assure you that the vast majority of the 2.6 million members of our church body continue to regard all fellow Christians with friendship and good will, and to rejoice whenever there is progress in resolving the doctrinal differences that have divided us over the years.
Dr. Ralph A. Bohlmann
President Emeritus
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Clearly, in light of his Portland address and the above letter, the Bohlmann of 1999 was at a different spot from where the Bohlmann of the mid-70s had stood. He also made this clear through his comments in the online Daystar discussions.
I last saw Ralph at the 2004 Synod convention. As we had done at the two previous conventions, we once again had lunch together. By that point he knew I was on my way to Valpo, and he wished me God's speed. On that occasion he again asked me when I was going to write “a serious book on the ordination of women." I told him that I needed first to finish my book on von Hofmann (which he kindly read that year and later told me he had liked), and to get into an academic position where I wouldn't face loss of employment for writing such a book! If I ever do get around to writing that book, I plan to dedicate it to Ralph.
Throughout the early to mid 2000s, he continued to participate sporadically in the online Daystar discussions, where some of the unhealed wounds from the 70s have occasionally been manifested. His participation there, too, suggests he had shifted from where he had been in 1973.
I'm grateful that I got to know the "later" Ralph Bohlmann. He became a trusted friend and an important adviser. While we didn't always agree on matters of theology--e.g., he was familiar with my written critique of "A Statement," [which one can read here] and my critique of six-day creationism--we respectfully agreed to disagree. He was always gracious in our conversations.
May he rest in the arms of God's mercy, in everlasting peace, and be welcomed into the glorious company of the saints in light.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)