A pattern of therapeutic self-justification has embedded itself across Lutheran institutions and filtered into the lives of the laity via lazy quasi-theological clichés.
Clichés become clichés because they are essentially true. The way you test this is to negate them and see if you agree with their negation. You may as well include on your list such Lutheran chestnuts as “Word and Sacrament,” “simul justus et peccator” and the solas. The problem is when these truths become formulaic and are recited without unpacking their proper meaning and application. This is not a constructive criticism of Lutheranism.
The point is not to criticize Lutheranism, but the way the LCMS especially applies what is essentially valid to "deessentialize" the truth. We are really good at mocking "methobapticostals", ELCA, and RCs if X and FB are anything to go by. Many of the paths those denoms took to deviate from Scripture are paths we are on.
We need to be careful, and more constructive, in critiquing our own tribe. Most of the “clichés” you cite here are solidly Lutheran concepts and can be supported by the Scriptures. I’m reminded of a cliché by Norman Nagel who was fond of reminding us that the “opposite of an error is not the truth but simply the opposite error.” Even the critique of “therapeutic self-justification” or “soft-antinomianism” or “moralistic therapeutic deism” is itself a cliché. There are some in our LCMS circles who have made a career out of deconstructing the LCMS and its parochial tendencies without offering anything constructive to take its place. This is its own form of self-justification.
If we don’t name the errors (and I used actual quotes but avoided naming anyone) then how will we know what needs to be corrected? Again, these are not isolated examples of not much. They are at the core of formation enterprises. They might be errors of emphasis, exaggeration, carelessness, or ignorance, but they are deadly when perpetuated in bulk.
That’s my point. These are not errors. The error is not in what you call a “cliché.” The error is turning the truth into a cliché. You may as well add “justified by grace through faith for Christ’s sake” and relegate the whole Reformation to a cliché.
Deconstruction is not constructive criticism. I’ve noticed this tendency in both politics and religion in our day to burn down the house without offering a constructive rebuilding plan. Some of your so-called “clichés” are in our Confessions, as you note. What the casual reader will do with your diagnostic list is use them as a litmus test of your version of “orthodoxy” rather than taking them to heart in repentance and faith. Criticisms like this contribute to an ongoing “hermeneutic of suspicion” which has been our unfortunate legacy since the 1970s.
Wouldn't the constructive criticism be implied in the admonition to avoid using the cliche´(s) as described? And also, how can one possibly know what casual readers will do with something that is written? That assumes an incredibly high level of foreknowledge. Finally, perhaps the "hermeneutics of suspicion" might have some basis in history and on-going concerns?
No, since the clichés above are generally true and quite important. Based on 34 years of pastoral experience, I have a pretty good idea as to what casual reading and hearing will do with the nuances of theology.
RE: Cliché #11 - Embodied presence is a Scriptural truth. “I no longer live but Christ lives within me.” Luther spoke of this as “being Christ for the neighbor.” James speaks in the same fashion when he says that faith-talk before the neighbor is empty. Peter says that unbelieving husbands are won by the piety of their wives. So the cliché of embodies presence is actually true and the negation of it would be false. The quotation given goes too far and makes works of mercy and love a means of grace in place of the preached Gospel and sacraments.
In a similar fashion, Christ is present in the hungry, thirsty, sick, naked, and imprisoned brother or sister. “As often as you have done it to these, the least, you have done it unto Me.” Christ is embodied in the least to serve, not to save.
You're right about clichés. Bad context can turn any truth on its head, and good context can rescue many things that are weak by themselves. The problem with clichés is how they are used. But going over this list again, I think at least half of the quotations are internally problematic.
Back in the 1990’s Dallas Willard offered a similar critique, captured in the phrase, “the [false] gospel of sin management.” Licentiousness and moralism were two sides of the same coin. He prescribed lifelong discipleship into Jesus’ way of through spiritual disciplines, but true transformation remained elusive. Is the ‘new obedience’ (AC VI) a false hope? Not if Romans 8 plus Galatians 5 are to be believed. The fruit of the Spirit does overcome the desires and works of the flesh, even though there is a lifelong struggle between flesh and Spirit, and conformity to the image and character of Christ remains an eschatological hope. Daily baptism, of course, involves putting off the old man that is corrupted by deceitful desires, and being renewed in the spirit of the mind (Eph 4). This is accomplishable. Perhaps we are stuck because we have been reading the Scriptures through the lens of medieval scholastic assumptions about how human beings are wired. Interference neuroscience offers a corrective. Attachments and ‘joy bonds’ are upstream from verbal truth and willpower, and therefore where the emphasis needs to be. See, for instance, Curt Thompson’s book, The Soul of Shame, and Jim Wilder’s books, such as Living from the Heart Jesus Gave You and Renovated. This latter work recalibrates Willard’s work in terms of attachment science and offers a workable process for repentance.
Great work to detect and expose these clichés. I've definitely been guilty of some of these.
Clichés become clichés because they are essentially true. The way you test this is to negate them and see if you agree with their negation. You may as well include on your list such Lutheran chestnuts as “Word and Sacrament,” “simul justus et peccator” and the solas. The problem is when these truths become formulaic and are recited without unpacking their proper meaning and application. This is not a constructive criticism of Lutheranism.
The point is not to criticize Lutheranism, but the way the LCMS especially applies what is essentially valid to "deessentialize" the truth. We are really good at mocking "methobapticostals", ELCA, and RCs if X and FB are anything to go by. Many of the paths those denoms took to deviate from Scripture are paths we are on.
We need to be careful, and more constructive, in critiquing our own tribe. Most of the “clichés” you cite here are solidly Lutheran concepts and can be supported by the Scriptures. I’m reminded of a cliché by Norman Nagel who was fond of reminding us that the “opposite of an error is not the truth but simply the opposite error.” Even the critique of “therapeutic self-justification” or “soft-antinomianism” or “moralistic therapeutic deism” is itself a cliché. There are some in our LCMS circles who have made a career out of deconstructing the LCMS and its parochial tendencies without offering anything constructive to take its place. This is its own form of self-justification.
If we don’t name the errors (and I used actual quotes but avoided naming anyone) then how will we know what needs to be corrected? Again, these are not isolated examples of not much. They are at the core of formation enterprises. They might be errors of emphasis, exaggeration, carelessness, or ignorance, but they are deadly when perpetuated in bulk.
That’s my point. These are not errors. The error is not in what you call a “cliché.” The error is turning the truth into a cliché. You may as well add “justified by grace through faith for Christ’s sake” and relegate the whole Reformation to a cliché.
Deconstruction is not constructive criticism. I’ve noticed this tendency in both politics and religion in our day to burn down the house without offering a constructive rebuilding plan. Some of your so-called “clichés” are in our Confessions, as you note. What the casual reader will do with your diagnostic list is use them as a litmus test of your version of “orthodoxy” rather than taking them to heart in repentance and faith. Criticisms like this contribute to an ongoing “hermeneutic of suspicion” which has been our unfortunate legacy since the 1970s.
Wouldn't the constructive criticism be implied in the admonition to avoid using the cliche´(s) as described? And also, how can one possibly know what casual readers will do with something that is written? That assumes an incredibly high level of foreknowledge. Finally, perhaps the "hermeneutics of suspicion" might have some basis in history and on-going concerns?
No, since the clichés above are generally true and quite important. Based on 34 years of pastoral experience, I have a pretty good idea as to what casual reading and hearing will do with the nuances of theology.
We can argue about the semantics of when a cliché is harmless or harmful, but let's be practical. How would you address no 11?
RE: Cliché #11 - Embodied presence is a Scriptural truth. “I no longer live but Christ lives within me.” Luther spoke of this as “being Christ for the neighbor.” James speaks in the same fashion when he says that faith-talk before the neighbor is empty. Peter says that unbelieving husbands are won by the piety of their wives. So the cliché of embodies presence is actually true and the negation of it would be false. The quotation given goes too far and makes works of mercy and love a means of grace in place of the preached Gospel and sacraments.
In a similar fashion, Christ is present in the hungry, thirsty, sick, naked, and imprisoned brother or sister. “As often as you have done it to these, the least, you have done it unto Me.” Christ is embodied in the least to serve, not to save.
You're right about clichés. Bad context can turn any truth on its head, and good context can rescue many things that are weak by themselves. The problem with clichés is how they are used. But going over this list again, I think at least half of the quotations are internally problematic.
Back in the 1990’s Dallas Willard offered a similar critique, captured in the phrase, “the [false] gospel of sin management.” Licentiousness and moralism were two sides of the same coin. He prescribed lifelong discipleship into Jesus’ way of through spiritual disciplines, but true transformation remained elusive. Is the ‘new obedience’ (AC VI) a false hope? Not if Romans 8 plus Galatians 5 are to be believed. The fruit of the Spirit does overcome the desires and works of the flesh, even though there is a lifelong struggle between flesh and Spirit, and conformity to the image and character of Christ remains an eschatological hope. Daily baptism, of course, involves putting off the old man that is corrupted by deceitful desires, and being renewed in the spirit of the mind (Eph 4). This is accomplishable. Perhaps we are stuck because we have been reading the Scriptures through the lens of medieval scholastic assumptions about how human beings are wired. Interference neuroscience offers a corrective. Attachments and ‘joy bonds’ are upstream from verbal truth and willpower, and therefore where the emphasis needs to be. See, for instance, Curt Thompson’s book, The Soul of Shame, and Jim Wilder’s books, such as Living from the Heart Jesus Gave You and Renovated. This latter work recalibrates Willard’s work in terms of attachment science and offers a workable process for repentance.