Richard John Neuhaus: A Lutheran con, like Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod on abortion

Richard John Neuhaus was a rising theologian within the late 1960s and early 1970s Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, at a time when the denomination was "schizophrenic" by its own standards.

In 1969, the body elected J.A.O. Preus, perceived as a conservative, as its new president, and him defeating an incumbent perceived as a bit more moderate. But, at the same time, it entered full "altar and pulpit" fellowship with the moderate-conservative, but not full conservative, American Lutheran Church. That was modified four years later into "fellowship under protest" even as the LCMS worried about "liberalism" in theology taking over its main seminary in St. Louis. That ended with the "Seminex" walkout, which failed to oust Preus from the presidency. (Bringing things to a full boil in the 1973-74 academic year, AFTER Preus had been re-elected to a second term and the "fellowship under protest" had been adopted, was the height of bad politics.  And, yes, churches are all about politics.)

Neuhaus supported Seminex, but at the same time, moved more conservative politically because of Roe v. Wade.

I came across this via the "Slacktivist" blog on Patheos. The writer, a liberal evangelical, was refuting David French in his claim that before the 1980s, the rising Religious Right didn't care about abortion. And, contra mythos of my LCMS days, teh Google to its own website tells me Lutherans for Life wasn't officially founded until 1979, and only claims some activity starting 1976. (That said, contra pro-life Catholic mythos, it's arguable that pre-Roe, abortion wasn't big on the Catholic radar screen either, contra Humanae Vitae.)

Anyway, Neuhaus was a sort of a neocon. He was also a paleocon, even more at times, per his affiliation with the Rockford Institute.

And, per Slacktivist, he is kind of full of it on other things.

If one truly does believe in historical-critical methodology, first, then "Jesus is Lord," with which he starts his blast, is always subject to human trimming.

Second, Christianity is compatible with non-democratic governments, human rights abuses, slavery and more. For the first, read Romans 13. For the second? More Romans 13 isn't bad. Nor is 2 Corinthians 11:24-25. For the third? Galatians 3:28. For all of the above? Any good Lutheran (or Catholic, for other reasons, perhaps) theologian would know of this book called "The City of God."

Third, any good non-Catholic would look at least a bit askance at going too far down the road of natural law for human rights. A good secularist would look hugely askance.

Fourth, despite his dipping one foot into theological liberalism or what passed for that at the LCMS of his salad days, it's laughable to be like National Affairs and paint him as a liberal. What he really was, was a neocon. (That's probably part of why Rockford booted him.) First Things magazine itself, in its encomium obituary, tells the truth.

I will say that, when he came by Concordia Publishing House in the early 1990s, he was well received among staff, even by the ordained minister who oversaw copyediting there and was more theologically conservative.

He struck me as a bit erudite and urbane. In hindsight, that probably comes from him being born in Canada.