While Martin Luther spoke about Christian Freedom that freedom is not the same erratic and destructive freedom Christians use to justify their departures from solid Reformational theology. The freedom they think that is, is not the freedom to explore or experiment with the church and her members. Yes, that Christian freedom is born from the same ideas the medieval Catholic Church endorsed. By all means they had different trappings but the theology was the same. People may not be doing it the same way 500 years later but they have the same reasons. As Luther put it, “The Theology of Glory vs The Theology of the Cross. It is important thing to note. You either fall into one or the other. There is no in between.
Ever since Luther’s time people have wanted to hitch their wagon to his horse. Thinking that his reformation was an open permissive to tack on things in which even he would disagreed with this happens still today even in the organizations bearing his name. Those type might speak of freedom and grace as Luther did but it is not the same. To them that meant freedom from doing it the way it was done. Luther did not throw the baby with the bath water. He acknowledge that some traditions were good to keep. His litmus test was whether it was found and focused on and in the Gospel. The new freedom wants to even divorce that. They want carte blanch on doing anything the way they want. It is the ugly blemish to a movement that was altogether a good thing.
Freedom to do as one wishes with little regard to liturgical order or the overall message of Grace Alone- Faith Alone is not something Luther never intended when he spoke of freedom . If you disagree then I ask you to read up on Huldrych Zwingli and Luther’s thoughts on him and towards him. Look I GET IT. As Lutherans we are supposed to not want to ever impose a legalism but I would argue that much like ‘freedom’ and adiaphora, legalism is often misunderstood especially when it regards practice. Every time I hear one’s arguments for these I also hear them say something about the Pharisees too, muh pharisees. You know I agree their problem was their self grandizing theology but that is just as possible with hipster liberal practices as it is to “those old stuffy ones” if not more. Especially when you consider the attitude and context of their arguments against it.
As G.K. Chesterton put it ” tradition is the democracy of the dead” so who better to be high mighty then those who think those guys got it wrong.
If we allow liberals and hybrid theological coverts dictate what we know plainly from Scripture and the Confessions then there is no point on standing on anything else like female clergy etc. The truth is that the ultra left Christian is just kicking the can further down from the ‘conservative’ wanting terribly bland and repetitive ‘praise songs’.
There is a fine line and that is what Luther and the reformation was all about. Freedom to be in Christ is not freedom from Christ via the means which has come and continues to, through considered forms of practice design to focus. This continued subtle distortion on what freedom means is a threat to any Reformational Christian. Going towards anything based in counter reformation theology is not reformational so stop pretending as such. It’s time for us to call those people out when they do. The reformation is not like Monolopy, you do not get a card to get out of stuffy Lutheran theology and practice. You do not get to claim to be something when you flirt with the ideas built on opposing those.