Two Theses on My Theological Enemies

     One always has theological enemies.  This is just the reality of life in this sinful world. There will be people who come to an aspect of theology and just don't get this. Sometimes this is just a matter of having a theological blind spot, and sometimes they are pernicious, wicked tools of Satan. (As an aside, if you think you know which one they are, there's probably a 50% chance you're wrong.)  

    Suffice it to say, there are, and always must be opponents.  Enemies.  Villains. And the world has given us some sage advice on how to deal with any enemy.  You crush them.  You crush them by villainifying them, by breaking them down utterly.  Destroy them completely, by any means necessary.  Hence the old adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Yet the wisdom of the world does not play out in full with the wilds of church theology, and so I will posit two theses, both of which are true, even though seemingly in contradiction:

1 - The enemy of my enemy, though useful against my enemy, is still wrong elsewhere.

2 - My enemy is quite often right about a great many things.

    We fall into trouble with the first one quite often in the Church.  A semi-recent example (that probably won't offend too many Confessional guys) would be the way that we cosyied up to the Neo-Evangelicals during the battle for the bible.  Indeed, they were enemies of our enemy de jour - the Higher Critic.  And in terms of Scriptural innerancy, they most certainly weren't bad allies to have.  However, we forgot that they would be our enemies on other fronts, and we got too close, and we forgot to guard ourselves on those other fronts... and then we start producing things like "Evangelical Style, Lutheran Substance" or "Everyone a Minister".  Did we win the battle for the Bible... sure, at the cost of unleashing the Worship Wars.

    We still fall into this same temptation.  We see an issue that is BAD (note my all caps).  And I will even concede that it is BAD (see with what large letters I am writing to you).  There are many people who will attack that BAD thing, and even with excellent argumentation.  However, that does not make them... good.  It does not justify them.  And quite often they come with extensive baggage.  Be careful how close you keep them.

    Of course, this plays into the second point.  My enemy is often right about a great many things.  See, part of the reason why I can be leery so easily about that person you've saddled up to in your quixotic fight against that BAD idea is that I'm much more concerned about BAD2 - a second bad idea over here.  For what ever reason, I've got a different focus - and here I see something else.  Your primarily villain isn't so bad when it comes to discussing BAD2 - in fact, he's quite good.  And you new ally, well, when it comes to BAD they might be okay, but on BAD2 they are utterly terrible and dangerous.

    This is the reality of life.  It's why Lutheranism at it's best is the Lonely Way.  There are times we ally with people, but then times when we must oppose them.

    We ally with Rome on many life issues, but must oppose them on Justification and faith.
    We ally with Conservative Protestants on Scripture, but must oppose them on worship and the Sacraments.
   We ally with Calvinists on election unto Salvation, but must oppose them on election unto damnation.
    We ally with the Arminian on the faith comes by hearing, but must oppose them on making a decision for Christ.

    Depending on the fight at hand, we have different allies.

    We forget this.  And we get tempted to get to close to one specific ally, especially when one specific fight calls to us.  And we can utterly forget that even the people whom we are fighting with now can indeed be our ally on other issues.

    So it might be good that someone is dead set against social justice stuff, doesn't mean that they are right on everything.  Be on guard.  And that crazy social justice guy - they might be on to something good elsewhere.

    And that Wisconsin guy might be good on somethings, but not on others.  And even Paulson has a few chestnuts that are spot on. And Biermann has some valid points even while others I would quibble with.

    Things seem so simple when we can boil all of our energy, our zeal, for focus onto one issue de jour, and then simply evaluate things along those lines.  But, of course, if we're boiling all of our zeal and focus into something, we've turned it into a hobby horse, and idol.  Hence, the beauty of the Lectionary that makes us look at different things all the times.
   
    This is also why quests for incessant doctrinal purity always will break your heart - you dig enough and push enough, and there's always an error somewhere.  Including within yourself.  This is why the "statis est" of the Confessions, of the Concordia are utterly wise.  It's why Luther even acknowledged in Smalcald that there were places we agreed with Rome, and even places where we could have reasonable debate.  That's hardly the simplistic monolithic constructions we find such comfort in.

    But we don't pay that much attention to Smalcald, anyway. Ah well, oh what of that, oh what of that!