I found myself frustrated listening to a couple of Missouri-Synod pastors discussing what they called The American Interim - an attempt to draw a parallel with the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims (1548-1555). German Lutherans were forced to make concessions in the wake of their 1547 defeat in the First Schmalkaldic War. Eventually the Protestant princes rose and in the Second war of that name they achieved victory marked by the 1555 Peace of Augsburg.
The Interim has prompted a great deal of debate and reflection in Lutheranism and Melancthon comes across as the great compromiser as this period is also marked by the controversy over Adiaphora and questions of Roman liturgical imposition. The drafters of the Magdeburg Confession (1550) resisted the compromise and called for resistance - not by mob violence but organised violence under the aegis of lesser magistrates.
The podcast pastors in question (one of them being Karl Hess) were elaborating some of the same tired (and frankly misinformed) arguments about Covid and the role the state played. At every turn the debate is confused by assumptions and givens regarding the role of the state and ignoring the fact that churches voluntarily register with it for tax exemptions and the like.
But there are other narratives being employed that are even more troublesome and misleading. First, there was mention of the post-war liberal order - language that should send up red flags. This narrative has been frequently employed as of late to engage in revisionism regarding the war and the nature of the Axis powers. The end result is often the suggestion that perhaps the Axis was justified and represented conservative forces resisting liberal change. The Allies won and imposed the globalist egalitarian order which has subsequently destroyed Western society and (they seem to think) the Church with it.
First of all, I will grant some revisionism regarding World War II is in order but in no way are the Axis powers justified - and needless to say those that trod this path end up venturing into dark places - such as Holocaust denial and for some, Hitler admiration.
The Axis was evil but the Allies were not good. It was case of evil fighting greater evil. The American, British, French, and Soviet Empires were not moral forces but fought for their own interests - and all committed their share of crimes before, during, and after the war.
The pastors in question seem to confuse conservatism with fascism's right-wing triangulation. The fascist movements across Europe were all related and yet each had its own flavour and style. The regimes in Spain and Croatia were more 'traditionalist' we might say but that didn't make them any less violent. Fascism in Italy, France, and Germany were (it could be argued) more modern and nationalist (in a secular sense), and yet not all embraced the egregious racial narratives and Anti-Semitism of Hitler's Nazis.
All these Right-wing nationalist parties emerged from the context of industrial revolution, revolutionary 19th century politics, and the destruction and upheaval of World War I. All represented a break from older traditional throne and altar polities. All were therefore the offspring (to some extent) of the Enlightenment and its various permutations.
To cast World War II as liberal vs. conservative is just plain misleading and ill informed. Further, not a few historians have convincingly argued that World War II was in fact a series of overlapping wars, many rooted in older territorial disputes and historical baggage.
The pastors in question also seemingly fail to grasp something rather basic - wars change things. There is no status quo ante bellum - at least not in terms of culture. Wars may end in stalemate, victory, or defeat, but societies are always changed by them.
We'll return to World War II momentarily. First, I wish to address some other issues.
There was also talk of acculturation and the fact the Church (broadly speaking) just accepts cultural norms and values. This is true and yet I would point out to these pastors that this is their fault. They haven't taught doctrine as they should, ethics, or antithesis. As a result, yes, their people think and act as the world.
Further, to correct this is no easy task as to challenge cultural norms - say about the American political system, news, or narratives about wars are likely to lead to sharp dissent and potentially a mass exodus. Such moves could bring down a congregation and for denominational employees (such as these pastors) this can be detrimental to one's standing and career.
So who's being worldly? Who is capitulating?
The pastors lament how equality has been enshrined (or even absolutized I would argue). It has become not just a means but an end - even an idol. They rightly condemn these developments but then fall back into appeals to the American Founders, arguing that their concepts of liberty and equality were more merit based - about a level playing field as opposed to the outcome-based thinking so common today. They didn't also use these exact terms, but the arguments and assumptions are familiar enough. They've been re-hashed and repeated ad nauseam in Right-wing circles for years.
They pointed to the need for a kind of a strict constructionism when it comes to the Constitution and lamented how that's been twisted and redefined by modern jurists and interpreters.
This doesn't help. It simply muddies the waters as we need to be willing to state the American Revolution was unjustifiable sin and the Constitution that emerged a decade later is a humanistic and flawed document.
This is not to say that we as Christians can't live in America but we should never confuse the state or citizenship with some kind of Christian standing or status. This is to make a serious category error.
The Constitutional order is not Christian and cannot be. It was never meant to be rigid in the way 'strict constructionists' or 'Originalists' argue. It left open questions of unelaborated powers, ambiguities, unresolved tensions, and an amendment process.
The modern Right seems to treat the Amendments as secondary or of a lesser authority. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitutional polity, which is why Originalism was so harshly critiqued in the 1970's and 1980's when it emerged. The Amendments are the Constitution and have equal standing. The Amendments are the Constitution.
Now, they can be changed and repealed - which itself is very telling and present a jurisprudence quite at odds with modern 'conservative' and so-called 'originalist' notions.
The pastors lamented the enshrinement of equality and insisted it was not present in the Founders. But the order they established didn't work and within a generation was under great stress due to inherent contradictions in the principles of the Constitution. It led to great social upheaval and angst and ultimately another generation later - civil war.
Chattel Slavery was ended (itself a problem for Originalists and apparently one of the pastors in question who seems keen to defend it) and thus the post-war amendments reflect this.
The 14th Amendment tasks the federal government with equal protection which is vague and throws 10th Amendment questions concerning delegated power into a questionable status. For some this all but superseded the 10th Amendment and the question of state's rights.
Wars change things. They bring in new orders and regimes. Regardless of whether or not the US Constitution was retained - it changed. It was not the same, nor would it be read and understood in the same way. New principles emerged and yet they don't always come into immediate effect and application. It has to be interpreted and sadly the US Constitutional order has a great flaw in that for laws to be tested - they have to be litigated. Litigation is going to be driven by cultural concerns and the values of the moment. There's subjectivity all down the line.
The Lincoln Assassination, the Johnson presidency, Reconstruction, and the crisis of the 1876 presidential election - and the 1877 Compromise put everything on hold in terms of the full application of the 14th Amendment. No one wanted another civil war.
The White Southern Establishment reasserted itself leading to Segregation as enshrined in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Equality was upheld but so was separation/segregation. Obviously many knew at the time (and it would become apparent to almost all in time) that such a regime was not in fact equal at all and thus on shaky legal ground.
World War I helped reunify much of American society and then came World War II.
Again, wars change things. People wrestled with what the war was about and the values and ideals of fascism.
Black Americans came home from the war and suddenly segregation and mistreatment was seen in a different light. It would take time for a full-blown civil rights movement to emerge but it did. Many realized that the problems were really rooted in the arrested process of reconciliation after the Civil War.
Let me state again, the US system is flawed in that it almost requires lawsuits for legislation to be tested and reviewed. This is but another reason why Christians cannot really function in the American system as New Testament ethics forbid the lawsuit.
Many knew the battles over civil rights in the 1960's over integration and state's rights were really a Second Civil War. Though the South lost again, there are those who are still trying to fight this battle and roll back the application of equality - that all men are created equal.
The pastors insist this is a fallacy. I would agree to some extent - certainly in terms of politics. Should I then assume that since they reject one of the fundamental tenets of the American system, they reject all expressions of patriotism and refuse to vote, serve on juries and are conscientious objectors? I hope so but I doubt it very much.
But since Christians are not to be engaged in politics, our take on these things is a bit different. We must teach the Church to think differently. Instead the call is to culture war and social action - even when (as these pastors admit) their own congregations are woefully ignorant of basic doctrine. Perhaps if they energized their people to study Scripture and think about the Kingdom and how to live in Kingdom terms, they might interact with society differently. But be careful what you wish for - they might (let's hope) turn off FOX and Newsmax, and maybe come to (rightly) reject both major parties and in fact the entire system.
But instead the Church has consistently confused American identity with all things Christian. And so when mainstream society embraced psychology in the 1960's and 1970's and began to absolutize and validate subjective notions of the self, self-esteem, and an affirming view of toleration - that is, that to tolerate requires to both validate and even celebrate the divergent view, then it's not too hard to see why the Church followed after. This has certainly been the case with Evangelicalism.
What they may lament as some recently emerged notion of 'wokeism' is actually something deeply rooted in American thinking and values. But these ideas are never static and they evolve.
There's another social epoch that affected all this - the end of the Cold War. The 1990's were a cultural watershed in terms of capitalist dissipation, psychologically driven self-indulgence, hedonism, and humanistic optimism. The period was also awash with wealth and the middle class lifestyle was greatly enriched. In this epoch of decadence, homosexuality entered the mainstream and contrary to some on the Right - the Communist regimes were never friendly to homosexuality or any kind of self-indulgent expressions of hedonist debauchery.
A lot of this went sideways in the 2000's and society has fragmented spawning numerous crises - not just for conservatives but for all involved. This has accelerated radical right-wing thinking as well as radical humanism. Unlike the spiritualist-driven humanism of the 1960's, the new order is largely materialist which has (at times) given it a different kind of militancy and a driving and pervasive (if admittedly frightening) set of ethics.
I don't believe the pastors in question understand these things nor have they reflected on them and as such they are being driven and manipulated by false and frankly dangerous thinking - by those who have a decidedly un-Christian (if Right-wing) take on modern history. The answer to the idol of equality will not be found in the idol of tribalist nationalism.
The Church can function just fine in the present context if the people are taught and understand what's happening and why - and what's our place in all this, and what price we have to pay. If we are to be faithful we will certainly be relegated to second-class citizenship but this has always been the case.
Frankly a lot of people (maybe even the vast majority) would leave. Their interest in Christianity is tied to its ability to grant a transcendent affirmation for their culture, values, and lifestyles. If Christianity won't let them wave the flag and celebrate being middle class, they're going to walk away. Their real idols, their real gods are all related to money, status, respectability, and the pride that goes with them.
The Interim narrative is bogus because the whole arrangement surrounding the Magisterial Reformation was unscriptural to begin with. The Schmalkaldic Wars were illegitimate expressions of unfaithfulness by Lutheran Christians and the Magdeburg Confession is a monument to error.
I was also repeatedly struck by the reality that Lutheran Two Kingdoms theology is masked Constantinianism. They want the state to enforce a Christian order. That's sacralism, a reiteration of Christendom - a false conception of the Kingdom of God. They can call it Two Kingdoms but what they want is a monistic order. Some Lutherans (I'm sure) would differ regarding the details but the entire episode revealed some of the deep flaws in Lutheran thought - and why they remain wide open to some rather dark influences. It's no accident that fascism is finding itself right at home within the bed of American Confessional and Evangelical Christianity.
The Reformed are not exempt either - it just enters by slightly different paths and doors.
Obviously all these arguments will fall on deaf ears as to accept them would mean to give up everything they have built their lives upon.
The phrase concerning 'Blind Guides' kept coming to mind as I listened to the discussion. I found myself all but groaning in anguish, burdened by the state of things in the Church, and troubled to think of the congregations listening to such leaders. They are blind guides leading the blind and we all know how that ends up. But the question is will the ditch they fall into be filled with fire and blood as well?
Listening to this I was repeatedly struck by how much the narratives and discourse paralleled what happened to Christians in Weimar. They were in a crisis - the old order they had mistakenly (and idolatrously) put their faith in had collapsed. They were bewildered and appalled by the new order that emerged - all part of a larger betrayal or stab in the back. This is connected to narratives about globalism and immigration - just as the 1930's Right blamed internationalist communism and the Jews.
There are so many Christian leaders today that are teetering on the edge of the precipice and yet they don't realize it. They have been misled into thinking what happened in 1930's Germany was a result of Left-wing machinations - as if the Nazis were about equality and liberal ideals such as free speech, democracy, an independent judiciary, the separation of powers, and individual rights. Rather, the Nazis were rabid nationalists and anti-communists and as authoritarians they trampled on tradition - creating a new transcendent organising principle, the German-Aryan Volk which demanded a loyalty that surpassed all ideology and allegiance connected to old Throne and Altar concepts of aristocracy and religion.
America's Christian Right has some who are flirting with Hitlerian ideology and yet most are edging toward Francoism or something akin to the Ustaše of Croatia - hyper-nationalism and religion combined with less pronounced and radical elements of racialism.
And like the industrially minded fascists of the previous era, the new Right is embracing technology, social media, AI, and receive support from (frankly creepy) tech-billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
It is disturbing to witness the resurgence of Right-wing politics and even fascism in Germany - and the fact that American Evangelicals are openly embracing it.
The American Church has succumbed to the world on various fronts but some of the solutions being offered are just as evil as what is being opposed. It's like trying to overcome darkness with darkness, to cure blindness by pouring acid into someone's eyes.
A great Christian testimony and witness is needed. The world is given over to wickedness and yet none of this should surprise us. Things might have been 'better' in some ways a few generations ago. However, there was also a tendency to self-deception and willfull blindness - something the 1960's activists could not stand and called attention to. They got much wrong but they were not entirely mistaken in their assessments. They had no solutions and were ultimately bankrupt, but that doesn't mean that everything was just wonderful and Christian in 1953 - or in 1853 either.
The great problem of the hour is not Obergefell, the need for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, or the election of Mamdani. Ancient Rome had sodomy, abortion, and its share of political controversies as well.
The problem is the Church needs reformation. The Magisterial Reformation was defective and failed, and its 'faithful' progeny continue to drift and fall under the sway of worldly ideas and ambitions. Its leaders are distracted and its people are starving and/or being misled. They need to be opposed. We can write off the theological modernists and their apostasy. Like the tribes of the Northern Kingdom they're long gone from the true faith and worship at different altars. Our trouble is within Judah (so to speak). We have a bunch of Church leaders who think they're following Hezekiah and Josiah, but instead are followers of Ahaz and advocate the same kind of Faustian bargain he made - and thus fall prey to the same kind of twisted ethics and reasoning which lead to idolatry.
It's certainly a time for bold words and great struggle but as has been so often the case since Evangelicalism emerged in the late 1940's - 'conservative' Christians are compromised by syncretist thinking and ethics, and deceived by idolatry. They are fighting the wrong battles - even while the enemy has all but taken over from within.