Thread by @DrJordanBCooper

Started going through the new Large Catechism essay by essay. I'll be using this thread for my thoughts on this while I read through it (this may take a while).

The introductory material was all good. The historical background to the text itself and to catechisms generally is going to be very helpful for readers.

There are a series of essays outlining the use of the LC in world Lutheranism. This was a really great look at ILC churches around the globe and unique problems that they face.

There was one reference to the ordo salutis as steps of conversion in Pietism in the article on European Lutheranism. This mischaracterization is frustrating, but it was a minor point.

Meilaender's intro to the commandments is as good as one would expect from him. Though some readers may be surprised to see Calvin cited as a "great Reformation theologian."

Menuge's article on the First Commandment explicitly calls out leftist social justice movements. It's a good summary of the role of apologetics.

Gieschen's essay on the second commandment is the stand out one so far. It's packed full of Scripture.

Paulson's essay is bad. It's his typical conflating of all soteriology with "the preacher" (i.e. the speech act). As an example of clear departure from the Formula, he equates election with the kerygma. He also completely removes any eucharistic element in worship at all.

He defines worship solely as that which God does for us. There is no talk of our response to God with praise. In other words, he makes the third commandment the work of God rather than a demand on sinners. Like RLs always do, he makes the law the gospel. It's bad.

Paulson should never been have asked to write in this volume, but it is unsurprising. There have been issues with these ideas encroaching into the LCMS for a long time, and it's no secret that Pless is a big part of that.

Arand's essay on the third commandment is much better, but he puts more things into the category of adiaphora than I would (I'm a bit of a liturgical stickler).

Sanchez' essay on social justice is just a clear and straightforward explanation of active righteousness in a social context. He equate social justice with Aristotle's social ethics. There's nothing whatsoever "SJW" about the essay. Further, a prior essay from Menuge clearly

differentiates between leftist social justice and a Biblical justice applied in a social context. Sanchez is clearly talking about the latter. It's a very good article.

The first article on the fifth commandment mentions that, yes, the holocaust did indeed happen, and that yes, the Nazis were bad guys. I'm sure that'll make the anon wannabe-Nazis mad.

Biermann's essay on the three estates is great, just as I'd expect.

Malueg-Lattimore's article is one that's been challenged due to two things: the use of the phrase "racial reconciliation," and mention of unarmed African Americans being killed by white police officers. Three points here:
1. Many of the challenges have come from people who do not

believe that racism actually exists. Mr. Turnipseed has said before that African Americans are not Americans. So of course these guys aren't going to like this. This is their sin, and they're being (rightfully) called out for it.

2. Yes, it is true that "racial reconciliation" is a liberal buzzword which can have all sorts of connotations that are problematic. But I don't think that is inherent in the use of the phrase. I mean, we are certainly to be people of reconciliation, and that absolutely includes

racial divisions. I'd argue that much of the left actually doesn't fight at all for racial reconciliation, but division. But that's another topic.

3. The mention of police killings could give the impression that there is an inordinate amount of white on black killing, but as

many know, that's pretty hard to demonstrate statistically. And it further is difficult to prove that all such killings were racially motivated. However, it's also clear that the author was simply trying to put things in a relevant modern context. And racism is absolutely sin.

The article that deals with gender dysphagia and homosexual attraction seemed pretty darn clear about these things being the result of sin, and the author strongly upholds a traditional sexual ethic. The thrust of it seems to just be the reality of indwelling sin and desires, and

that we should be loving toward those who struggle in such ways. I really don't see what the issue is here. The whole section on sexuality is very clearly opposed to our current age. Is the problem here that it's too pastoral?

I don't really have much to say about the articles about the 7th and 8th commandments. They're just pretty straightforward explanations.

Nunes' essay has one paragraph that mentions the possibility of inequity for minority business owners. I suppose that isolated, this could be taken as some general statement about systemic inequality in all areas of society or something, but I don't see anything like that here.

Pless' essay on the 9th and 10th commandments was a clear standard explanation, as were the two articles on the conclusion of the commandments. The articles throughout were clear regarding the third use of the law.

Arand's intro to the Creed is fantastic. I won't comment on Kilcrease's essay because I know I can't read the guy fairly and impartially.

The article on The Holy Trinity is solidly orthodox and Nicene. I didn't see any social Trinitarianism. Good stuff.

Pless' article on the Father states that the denotation "Father" is not analogical. He says this is true because he really is the one who begets the Son. But, surely the "begetting" is not a literal human begetting. I'm not sure what he's getting at here, but it is odd.

He has a good critique of theologies that refer to God with feminine language. The practical application of the doctrine here is well-done.

Serina's section on creation does use some language that could be construed as saying that the Genesis account is not historical. I don't think that's what he means though. The intent seems to be that Genesis is concerned with theological ideas rather than modern scientific ones.

But, I can certainly see how people would take issue with the wording here as it is a bit sloppy. A clarifying sentence would have been helpful.

The next chapter though clearly deals with Darwinism. Some statements between these two essays do seem a bit contradictory.

I like Arand's work on creation care, so I appreciate his essay on the subject a lot. I'm glad he just avoided the climate change debate.

The intro to the second article and the section on Christ's person from Corzine have some really deep theology explained very accessibly, such as the three genera of the communication of attributes and the economic/ontological Trinity.

Kolb's piece on atonement had me a little on edge at first because he makes use of the doctrine/proclamation dichotomy that's often used to reject vicarious satisfaction. However, he doesn't do that at all, and the rest of the essay is great.

Elowsky's ecumenical councils article is a concise explanation of Patristic Christology. Well done.

Kolb's article on the Fall is mostly a historical study of Luther's view. It's generally a good summary, though I'd differ from Kolb's contention that the imago dei is only relational.

Cwirla's article on the Gospel has a little of that doctrine/for you speech dichotomy that I don't think is helpful, but it's generally a pretty standard Lutheran take on the Gospel.

The final essay in the section on Article II is fine.

Mattes' intro to article III is great. No surprise there. And he speaks of the ordo salutis in a positive way! That makes this scholastic's heart glad.

Sanchez on the Spirit is, unsurprisingly, a highlight in this volume. He's not afraid to speak of cooperation in sanctification and the reality of the Christian's renewed will.

Masaki's article on the church again makes a critique of leftist social justice ideas in the church.

The treatment on the church as a whole in this volume is catholic and Confessional.

The eschatology essays seem to especially focus on the resurrection of the body. With so many misunderstandings among laity on this point, it's a great truth to emphasize.

Sutton's essay on technology rightfully emphasizes that the fullness of the gospel is only received in actual in-person worship, not virtually.

The idea of our sharing in Christ's Sonship and thus having access to the Father sets forth a Christological doctrine of prayer in Vogel's essay.

I appreciate that in Nestingen's article on the theologia crucis, he acknowledges that the distinction only shows up in 1518. There's definitely Forde in the essay.

I was interested in how the two kingdom article would be as there's no shortage of debate on this point. The author navigated the distinction well, but didn't delve into specific areas of debate (how does Christianity relate to the state?)

I'm sure it's just my love of scholastic categories, but Ziegler's essay could have included some more distinctions on God's will. I think this would significantly clarify some things. His section on election was far too brief.

Senkbeil on suffering is pastoral as he always is, but rather brief.

Laato's "Praying as Sinner and saint" article could have used a little balance in the reality of inner renewal.

Miller's following essay is also very defeatist. It is said that we "sometimes" obey, but I get the impression from the article that the Christian life is basically just continual sin and obedience every once in a while.

I'm glad Bennett was asked to write on evil.

Dealing with suicide, death, and other hard issues is helpful. Glad they've included these.

Alright, that's the end of the Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. Onto the sacraments.

Reading the intro and first article, I'm just reminded of how Baptismal theology is really why I'm Lutheran. Very edifying.

I absolutely love Sanchez' article on Jesus' baptism as the basis of our Baptismal redemption. My favorite in the volume.

The infant Baptism essay needed a lot more. It wasn't bad, but our laity *really* need to understand the basis for infant baptism. I don't think the arguments in this article alone will be that compelling.

The election essay, I felt, also needed a little more.

Veith on Baptism is great as one would expect.

The weirdest article in this volume so far is Masaki's on the nature of Christ's presence in the Supper. He is adamant that we should not use the term "real presence" or even just "presence" of Christ in the Supper. He is then critical of using the words "meal," "Eucharist," and

even "Sacrament." He seems to think we should simply limit all discussions of the Lord's Supper to the Words on Institution. I doubt he would like my parsing out the local/illocal presence categories...

The other essays on the Supper are good though.

The articles on Confession and absolution are well-written. I hope that the emphasis on private absolution bears fruit.

So that's it. Final thoughts: there is absolutely no validity to the charge that the book promotes leftist social ideas at all. At numerous points in these essays, leftist social justice is critiqued. Anyone can take a couple random phrases out of a 900 page nook and make them

sound bad without context. These same guys do it to me all the time, so it isn't surprising that they've done it here. The only questionable things at all are about three sentences worth of material. It's a lot of controversy over nothing.

Theologically, the Paulson essay was the biggest issue. I also think the Masaki article on the Supper felt out of place and not all that helpful for a layperson reading the text. This and a couple other articles felt like they were discussing inter-theological debates rather than

providing useful commentary for laity.

There is a significant lack of participatory language in the book, but this plagues most modern Lutheranism. #MakeMysticalUnionGreatAgain Sanchez is a significant exception to this, and also has the best article in here.

But most of the essays were good. Like any multi-author volume, some are better than others. Overall, I wouldn't have an issue buying a copy of this for someone. And if you're on the fence, I think it's worth reading. But I would warn you away from Paulson.

Alright. Finally done.