Signals not to Send

Note: images throughout (except the Galatians meme) are from Berg's presentation.

The Rev. Dr. Michael Berg delivered this presentation at the 2024 National Conference on Worship, Music & the Arts, and it can be viewed online. Let's take a gander.

First - it is my understanding based on the testimony of two or three witnesses that the Bergs are democrats. In which case the cover art (and the majority of art throughout) is pretty rich insofar as depicting those across the aisle as abusing the image of our Lord and Savior for political means. We all recognize the majority of the WELS leans republican (in my opinion, for legitimate reasons aligning with our theology). This bias in imagery paints a picture of a problem that in my humble opinion does not exist - can Berg point to a WELS pastor or teacher who has used this kind of imagery on social media? 

Berg opens with stories from both sides of the aisle - Barbara Bush encouraging her Pastor to pray for Bill Clinton, and Obama's rebuke of Jeremiah Wright - and I appreciate Ollutheranel's take on this - it's  "only an oopsie if outsiders hear it." We can't read Obama's heart to know if it was politically expedient.

To be fair, Berg has some good points in this presentation, the discussion on Ted Kennedy and the Trump assassination attempts being among them. 

Skipping ahead to nine and a half minutes in Berg begins an argument from Luther that we cannot determine teleological causes - that is, when a world event happens, we can't say that God is doing it for a particular end. Berg acknowledges that here, Luther does not follow his own advice. Berg's justification is that we are not God, and we risk making people upset - and making people upset is a barrier to the Gospel, a similar drum he beat in his presentation on critical theory regarding chatter in the narthex. In my opinion making people upset is not an argument because a persons' emotional state is not an arbiter of truth or appropriateness. Someone may get very worked up if you won't use their preferred pronoun - it doesn't mean I should. The Bible does speak very clearly about certain future events being indicative. Jesus chastises the Pharisees for not recognizing the sign of the times. Isaiah 3 warns us that a woman ruling over a country is a sign of judgement (let the reader understand).

Berg's discussion of ultimate and penultimate (around sixteen minutes) is another very good point - we need to keep our eye on the prize.

At the 20:30 mark Berg asks whether we are a Christian nation. Berg says that "we have decided the answer is no" citing a lack of a state religion, but Berg is being loose with his words here. We do not have a state religion on the federal level, but at the formation of this country many of the states had their own state Christian denominations, and the freedom of religion offered was a freedom of Christian religious expression. No such protections were offered to other religions. This is something we have lost in the last two hundred years, broadening the scope of Christian religious protection to 'anything goes'. In that sense we were very much a Christian nation under a similar Cuius regio, eius religio of sixteenth century Europe.

"living off the borrowed capital of a Judeo-Christian worldview"

... like nails on a chalkboard! What has light to do with darkness? 

Berg's discussion of conservative and liberal being labels that are modern and lazy is once again good advice, but his shaming of liberal and conservative churches is not. I know he isn't pushing for ecumenism here, rather he's wanting to constrain the way the Church speaks to be amenable to both sides of the aisle, something that will only be possible in heaven when we are perfect and participate in perfect theocracy. But while we remain on this earth, if liberal churches are going to espouse LGBTQ+ ideology, why would I sit in a church where heresy is taught? If someone identifies with that movement, why would they want to sit in a confessional Lutheran congregation and hear their identity preached against? He revisits this idea later asking whether we are trying to be right or whether we are trying to save souls, the implication being we can have a church where we disagree politically but not theologically. To some extent, perhaps, but theology is not an intellectual pursuit, doctrine is life and will necessarily touch the way we think of and interact with the world.

more "republican Jesus" imagery

We're now at the thirty-minute-mark where Berg says we don't want to bring Jesus into politics because 

"countries come and go, the Gospel is forever"

Which is silly: government is whose Left Hand? What about Psalm 2? Psalm 82? Romans 13? God ensconced a table of nations in Genesis and He ordered the destruction of nations only when their iniquities were full (ref. Gen 15:16). We recognize God's top-down work in and through nations, we should also recognize bottoms-up work insofar as the supplication of a people can avert God's wrath. Ninevah, obviously. Good king Hezekiah. It matters when kings repent and their nations to do likewise.

Berg lets his liberal mask slip a little

"do we ignore climate change but get really worked up about something else?"

 

Relatively tame Obama saint candles contrasted with a blasphemous AI image of Trump...

Berg cautions us not to take sides on Israel and Palestine, and this is fair advice. I'd prefer we as individuals and as a nation kept our noses out of foreign disputes.

To close out, Berg says "It's our job to help people think clearly, but not necessarily what to think when it comes to things outside of theology." Contrast this with the historical view: "Theology is queen of the Sciences." Clear, Christian thinking should converge on the 'right' answer(s), should it not? To Berg, we should focus on the Great Questions instead of specifics. The Great Questions are - by definition - pretty great, and exploring those broad philosophical issues is useful for thinking and expressing categorically, but on the flipside it also at keeps us a step removed from where the rubber hitting the road.

Berg ultimately wants to have a narrow view of Gospel and 'trust' that Gospel will translate into practical and political realities. But I, as a father, don't teach the Gospel and trust my sons will learn how to bathe themselves and drive a car and woo a woman. These are taught skills. Knowledge from both the Bible and the world is mediated by the wisdom from God in the Scriptures are incorporated into growing a person in wisdom and stature. This is no different for a pastor - the father of a congregation - than it is for a father of a family or an employer (a father to their employees). Berg misses that. He wants it seems a clean separation between salvation and reality. He's stuck in his great questions, which is a fantastic place for an academic to be who doesn't want to roll up his sleeves and get dirty.

Let's get dirty. What is the difference between Kamala and Trump? Both support abortion - but to Kamala's voters it is a sacrament. Trump's supreme court nominees overturned Roe v Wade and returned the issue to the states - putting it out of his purview. Both Kamala and Trump engage in rhetoric that we would find unbecoming, but only one candidate has experienced multiple assassination attempts. Kamala funds sex changes for inmates and Walz oversaw the implementation of the PELSB educational standards (with real implications for the WELS in the state of Minnesota) and supported all manner of transgender ideology, whereas both Trump and Vance have espoused a 'live-and-let-live' philosophy, with Vance publicly sharing that these ideologies conflict with his faith. Kamala runs pro-pornography advertisements, Trump does not. Kamala runs advertisements with an unmarried couple having sex and reaching for Plan B, Trump does not. Kamala will take our children (no longer just our sons) to war, Trump will not. Kamala tells a heckler saying "Christ is King" that they are at the wrong rally while Vance at his rally responds "You are right. Jesus is King." Kamala will expand the federal government, Trump says he won't, but if he does it will likely be to a far lesser extent.  

As a Christian I'd prefer a candidate that can clearly say abortion is wrong, that keeps the dialogue above board and that can clearly speak against the evils of LGBTQ+ ideology (even better - can explain the difference between the LGB and the TQ+ threats to society). There is a clear difference between the promotion and acceleration of these social vices and the allowance and recognition that federalism dictates these things are for states to decide. As a Christian I also recognize woman should not be in positions of power, men should be protecting and defending women not only in the home and church but in society.

Two dirty options, but one is a clear vote for God's judgement and the other is not.