Setting The Church's Agenda
by James Crumley
To say that the church is in trouble has become almost a cliche". This evaluation is made of denominations both individually and together. Within our society the church as a whole is in trouble.
What criteria are used to measure the effectiveness of the church? This may be a clue to the problem. They may be in terms of organizational or institutional effectiveness: loss or increase in membership, financial stability or growth, the solidity of the church's turf in the public sector, influence of the church on political or economic policy, the church's "image," its authority, and whether the church as an institution can be trusted. The conclusions as to the health of the church are derived from statistical studies and projections, sociological analyses, or management goals. It is possible lo gauge the church's performance solely in terms usually applied to organizations or social entities.
Church leadership of times is cowed by such analyses and sets out to answer from me same sociological perspective. Thus the reaction to a declining membership is to find ways to attract more members. Financial constraints issue in schemes to raise money. Leadership may strive to make the church more influential by seeking the centers of power, and then it likes to report visits with heads of state or others who make policy decisions. The church may attempt to restore or build public confidence by retaining consultants to build a public image.
So the church becomes involved in building all types of pro grams, and promoting all kinds of causes. It attempts to be "all things to all people." But the question remains as to how effective the proffered solutions are.
Many of the most loyal people in the church are proponents of this approach. The church as institution, they insist, is a human organization and therefore must use the same criteria as any human organization. The primary question then becomes, "What works? What produces results?"
I contend for a different point of view. The church is human and organization, yes, but at the same time it is divine and communion, a communion of members with God and with one another, because the church possesses the signs by which it is known: Word and Sacrament. For this reason the primary question must be changed from "What works?" to "How can the church be faithful?"
A different set of criteria must be used lo measure the church's vitality. These include the question of self-identity. What is the church? What does die Lord of the church expect the church lo do – what is its mission?
The church is an organization and needs to be effective organizationally. But its reason for being is in another and higher place. While the church may be in trouble, be in decline, that should lead us to think not primarily in terms of organizational effectiveness, but in the church's being true to itself and thus to its Lord.
We are not clear about the church in these dimensions. We lose our nerve by becoming servant to everyone's expectations. We are tempted to lose the theological and ecclesiological foundations for the church's existence.
I am convinced that these bases must undergird all the church does. Even in matters such as personnel practices and policies, the church ought to act like a church, not ape a corporate model. Church structures are under both the Law and Gospel of God. If Word and Sacrament "constitute" the church, to use the language of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry [WCC document] then they arc in the very warp and woof of the church's fabric. Any other approach divides the church into things spiritual and things material, and that dichotomy does not work theologically for the church any more than it does for the individual person.
I reflect on the work of the Commission for a New Lutheran Church (CNLC). Though its work is more than five years old, I think the problems that surfaced there still plague us. They arose from a pattern that was superimposed on the Commission's work, a pattern pervasive in our culture and society. We members of the Commission can reflect on the process used and the ways in which we became "captive" to attitudes, ideas and procedures that did not always serve us well.
The two articles at the beginning of the ELCA Constitution on the Nature and the Purpose of the Church are solidly confessional and describe correctly the Church's mission. But as the Constitution was being put together, these were some of the last provisions to be adopted. In fact, the article on the Nature of the Church was adopted at the last meeting and during the final minutes of that meeting! All the structural decisions had already been made. One decision of crucial importance theologically – the question of ministry – had to be postponed because we could not agree among ourselves.
While a Task Force on Theology was appointed early on, little discussion was held on their document and it was simply received as a "working document." Later in the process it was clear we did not agree on a basic ecclesiology [for example, concerning the doctrine of ministry] because that document did not contain the criteria by which the other decisions were being made.
Most issues were thus left completely open and could be decided pragmatically. As CNLC members we were totally in control so that we could adopt church structures as we pleased. "New church" also meant that we were searching for novel solutions which subjected us to the pressures of special interest groups. I argue that at least some of our present problems are the result of that way of looking at church and mission.
The analysis provided by Leslie Newbigin in his book. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society [Eerdmans, 1989] is most helpful. He defines the pluralist culture in this way:
"Pluralism is conceived to be a proper characteristic of the secular society, a society in which there is no officially approved pattern of belief or conduct. It is therefore conceived to be a free society, a society not controlled by accepted dogma but characterized rather by the critical spirit which is ready to subject all dogmas to critical (and even skeptical) examination" (p.l).
That pluralism 1 think has infected the Christian faith and the churches. So I want to examine some aspects of our ecclesiology and their relevance for setting the church's agenda.
The Constitution of the ELCA reflects sound and useful ecclesiology for evaluating the program and life of the church, but it has not been incorporated effectively. Here are only some of the pertinent paragraphs:
4.01: The Church is a people created by God in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, called and sent to bear witness to God's creative, redeeming and sanctifying activity in the world,
3.02: The Church exists both as an inclusive fellowship and local congregations gathered for worship and Christian service.
5.01: The Church recognizes that all power and authority in the Church belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, its head.
The Constitution acknowledges that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is not identical with the ELCA. Lumen Gentium [from Vatican 11] says that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church "subsists in the Roman Catholic Church." That would apply as well to the ELCA. The Church of the creed subsists in the ELCA, but the latter is not identical with the former. The ELCA has not captured the Church. These provisions of the ELCA Constitution show that high priority has to be given by the ELCA to the Church as one, apostolic, catholic and holy, separated unto and deriving its life from its head, Jesus Christ.
These constitutional provisions describe what is often called a "high" view of the Church. The Church is a grace-filled gift, not a human creation. The center of the Church's witness and proclamation is Jesus Christ Therefore the Church on earth is the embodiment of that reality. The Church is incarnational, it is the "body of Christ." That means that the life of the church as a structured or institutional unit is integral to the plan of salvation.
Particularly in the U.S., many who are not members of the church insist they are "believers." The church is tempted to become relevant to the people of this American culture by using their wishes and criteria for relevance, rather than the church's own. Evangelism then is driven by a market or consumer-oriented mentality. The church defines itself as able to "meet people's needs" – the needs of people who may have little or no recent experience in the church. And the church struggles to fulfil] their evaluation and expectations!
The church has a mission greater than meeting people's needs as they are seen and defined by the people themselves. Newbigin once more:
"In discussion about the contemporary mission of the church it is often said that the church ought to address itself to the real questions people are asking. That is to misunderstand the mission of Jesus and the mission of the Church. The world's questions are not the questions which lead to life. What needs to be said is that where the Church is faithful to its Lord, there the powers of the kingdom are present and people begin to ask the question to which the Gospel is the answer." (Ibid, p. 119).
For the church to understand the society in which it ministers is not only desirable but essential. However, for the church to assume that the society sets the church's agenda is suspect. Rather, the church confidently defines its task and develops its program on the foundation of its own identity and its mission.
To set the agenda of the church requires a focus, a concentration, and certainly it does not imply that the church must be shaped by the culture or society, nor can it be all things to all people. I conclude with Newbigin's corrective:
"Jesus manifestly did not intend to leave behind him simply a body of teaching. If that had been his intention he surely would have written a book and we should have something like the Koran instead of the book we have. What he did was to prepare a community chosen to be the bearers of the secret of the kingdom." (Ibid, p. 133).
"But where something else is put at the center, a moral code, a set of principles, or the alleged need to meet some criterion imposed from outside the story, one is adrift in the ever changing tides of history, and the community which commits itself to those things becomes one more piece of driftwood in the current." (Ibid, p. 148).
* Bishop Crumley was the head of the Lutheran Church in America at the time it merged with two other denominations to become the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He served on the Committee for a New Lutheran Church which drew up the merger documents and shepherded the new church into being. This article is excerpted from his address to the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, in April of this year, and is used by permission.
Where Do We Stand?
by David Bunn*
Scarcely a better reminder of the Lutheran Church's stake in the truths of the Reformation can be given than this article by a bona-fide member of "the priesthood of all believers" ennobling the sacred ensign of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura, the Scripture alone, as the only reliable guide for our Christian faith and life. – the Editors.
In 1521 Martin Luther made his famous proclamation before a council comprised of the powers of church and state. Called to recant his views and writings on salvation, grace, and the Church, he exclaimed, "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason, I do not accept the authority of popes and councils – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."
We do not honor Luther for defying the civil and spiritual authorities. We honor him for his faithfulness to the Word of God. The Lutheran Church, the church of our heritage, was built with the Word of God – the I Holy Scriptures – as its foundation, with its unshakable revelation of God's will, character and plan, a rock to withstand and interpret the flow of peoples, cultures, tradition, theories and ideas through the centuries. The Word of God above anything else has defined our faith.
We who call ourselves Lutheran Christians still claim these Scriptures as the principal definer of our faith. I would encourage all of you to read Chapter 4 of our synod Constitution, the "Confession of Faith"
One excerpt reads: "This synod accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life."
I suggest there are only two basic ways of approaching Scripture. In examining these approaches, we can make an honest assessment of where we stand.
The first approach is based in humility. Accepting with no reservations the Bible as God's principal revelation and fully cognizant of our own weakness, especially pride, we come to the Scriptures seeking with our whole hearts to learn, to grow, to change, to be transformed. We do not judge Scripture; we let Scripture judge us.
The second approach rests on pride. Despite good intentions and noble aspirations, this fundamental orientation can be unsubmissive and self-centered. Our own value system, ideology, past experiences, personal sympathies, anger, hurt and bitterness, can cause us to interpret Scriptures to suit our own purposes.
With such an approach, the Bible in its entirety eventually becomes intolerable. Deep down we become offended, even outraged byparts of the Bible, by the passionate forcefulness of the love of God, by the pure righteousness and holiness it calls us to, by its message of self-denial and self-sacrifice rather than the self-fulfillment we often seek, by its refusal to compromise, by its clear delineation of .sin. We begin to ignore sections, explain away others, and twist passages to fit our agendas. We throw every possible weapon at it, from committees and psychoanalysis to higher criticism and statistics, trying to beat it into a compliant beast of burden. As a result, the Bible is reduced to a subjective collection of stories, illustrations and a watered-down Gospel of "cheap grace."
Where do we really stand? – As individuals, families, congregations and synod? In good conscience can we still claim to be a church that accepts the Bible as the "authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life?"
I am afraid not While we are all guilty of manipulating the Bible, I believe that our present discord and confusion over issues that are clearly addressed in Scripture indicate that we have taken unusually drastic steps toward undermining our Biblical base.
I call upon our church members to reflect on their relationship to God and His Word. Those of us who are not submitting to Scripture need to at least recognize the fact and then draw honest conclusions. Those of us who desire to submit to all God has for us in his Word have our own areas to repent of. Who truly believes the words of the Bible, "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever"? Our church and our own eternity will stand or fall on how we answer that question.
*Bunn, a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard College and a 1985-6 Fullbright scholar in Germany, is an agriculturist and a member of the Parish Council of St. Ansgar Lutheran Church in Salinas, Calif.
Something to About . . .
SAY, "UNCLE"!
Meeting in Atlanta, ELCA bishops were told by the Roman Catholic's Pierre Duprey, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, that the two churches could reach "anew stage of unity in 1997," provided the ELCA's 1997 Assembly will affirm that "what Lutherans believe is not what Roman Catholics condemned 450 years earlier." (Lutheran World Information, 6/93)
Start apologizing, you Lutheran ecumaniacs, for how your forefathers misled the poor Roman Council of Trent into misunderstanding what Lutherans believed; or else apologize for your present beliefs if they still conform to the Council's imprecations! Either way, we've gottcha, so say "Uncle"!
HOW TO BE MISERABLE*
From an unknown source comes an article titled, "How lo Be Miserable." It says, "Think about yourself. Talk about yourself. Use T as often as possible. Mirror yourself continually in the opinion of others. Listen greedily to what people say about you. Expect to be appreciated. Be suspicious. Be jealous and envious. Be sensitive to slights. Never forgive a criticism. Trust nobody but yourself. Insist on consideration and respect. Demand agreement with your own views on everything. Sulk if people are not grateful to you for favors shown them. Never forget a service you have rendered. Shirk your duties if you can. Do as little as possible for others."
Seeing ourselves as the center of the universe leads to misery. We weren't made to be the focus of our own attention. According to Isaiah 57:15-21 we were made to give our hearts to "the High and Lofty One," who lives with those who have a contrite and humble spirit. He brings comfort and peace to those who sense their need of Him. A PERSON IS NEVER SO EMPTY AS WHEN HE IS FULL OF SELF.
*from Our Daily Bread, 9/29/93, Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Ml 49555
Perspectives
POWER PLAYS IN CHURCH
Do we want less or more power plays in the church? Dr. Sam Shoemaker, noted soul-winner and prayer-warrior reminds us: "Our age is power conscious, but many have yet to discover that prayer is the most powerful power of all. We can pray from any depth of need, from any hell hole of sin, from any distance of skepticism and unbelief whatever. A cry to God in the darkness is heard by him in the light. We all do pray at times. Only we must grow in prayer."
STARTING CHURCHES
The Presbyterian leader for the state of Idaho was asked how many churches they intended to plant in a decade, according to Dawn Report, 9/92. The answer was, "Only ten." Thereason? "It costs us $500,000 per church. Presbyterians expect a fully trained, full-timeministerIamanse,landandaproperchurchbuilding." The Assemblies of God S uperintendent for the same state was asked the same question. Hisanswerwas200new churches. How could they do it?
"It costs us $2,400. We pay for an overhead projector, some song books and some chairs, if needed. The new church meets in rented facilities with a self-supported church planter. As the church grows the new people pay their own establishment costs."
It costs the ELCA "the usual $700,000 for an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America mission start" according to The Lutheran , 7/93, p. 36. Is it time to rethink our church-planting strategies?
We could slart with the idea reported from the same Lutheran article ùan idea apparently just recently come down straight out of heavenùthat an established congregation organize its suburbanite commuters into a new mission and provide worship leadership and facilities (in this case Hope Church, at Souihpoinle, ND).
Your editor was part of such a "revolutionary" program 40 years ago in Fullerton,CA. As he recalls, mostof the churches which today are sprinkled around Detroit, began the same way. Lutherans in South America regularly have a downtown Mother-Church which births and then nurtures satellite gatherings of the faithful until these new fellowships can support themselves. Or we might even encourage interested lay leaders to organize themselves in home-church clusters. Of course this latter proposal implies that a domineering denomination is prepared to loosen some of its management protocols. And a measure of faiih would be asked that the Spirit can be trusted to sow the unpolluted Gospel seeds through broadcasters who never learned the esoteric art of sermonizing on the distinction between dcmythologizing and realized eschatology. But the Assemblies don't seem to be doing too badly with their Spirit-trusting, do they?
A BELIEVING USE OF THE BIBLE
The Lutheran Bible Institute movement began in the '20s in response to the requestof lay people forafuller understanding of the biblical foundations on which the Lutheran Church builds its faith and life. Dr. Ben Johnson, Dean of Lutheran Bible Institute in Calif,
Anaheim, now celebrating its 40 years of service to the Church, announced that LBIC will offer a special series of visiting faculty this year to augment its regular two-year instruction in the intensive and "believing use of the Bible." They are: Dr.GeorgeMuedeking, former editor of the American Lutheran Church's national publication, the Lutheran Standard ; Dr. George Forell, distinguished professorof the University oflowa'sSchoolofReligion; Dr.Frank Seilhamer, former president of Hamma School of Theology and Provost of Trinity Seminary, and Dr. Roy I larrisville, Luther-Northwestcm Seminary professor. Inquiries for class enrollments may be made to LBIC, 641 South Western Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804.
THE OTHER BOSNIA
World attention has been focused on the terrible "ethnic cleansing" atrocities in Bosnia and the Balkans. Yetfor the past five years, a similar war has been raging in Armenia. Its Muslim neighbors in Azerbaijan systematically work to destroy this suffering people.
Armenia, Open Doors reminds us," was the first nation in the world to declare itself Christian, in AD 301. Since then, few countries have experienced such suffering and oppression, spanning the centuries from the Persians to the Soviets. It reached a peak in World War I, when the Turks exterminated nearly 2 million Armenians in this century's first Holocaust. Now it is the turn of the Azeris, whose Minister of Internal Affairs said amid loud applause that he 'didn' t care if half of Azerbaijan would perish, as long as this leads to the Armenians being wiped off the face of the earth."
"Given Armenia's long Christian history and record of suffering," OpenDoors concludes, "its people should have a special place in our hearts and prayers. Please pray for our brothers and sisters who live in these terrible conditions, and ask that [Christian] revival will grow."
NEW VCL COALITION FORMED
A task force called VERY CONCERNED LUTHERANS (VCL) headquartered at Bethlehem Lutheran, Santa Rosa, was recently called into being by "a group of pastors and laypcople of the Synod to discuss their concern over the focus on the gay/lesbian issue withrespectto ordination." Inapubliclettertheysaid, "Recent synod assemblieshaveseen resolutions presented, revised, amended and substituted over this issue, leaving delegates confused and with a sense that our Lutheran heritage has been betrayed." They observed that Assembly business sessions are dominated by yearly overtures to endorse the homosexual agenda, rather than concentrating on the mission and evangelistic goals of the Church. They adopted a position "to support the current ELCA ordination policy [which requires its homosexual clergy to be celibate, i.e., non-practicing] and to communicate that support to synodical congregations." They are inviting individual affiliations with VCL "so that a viable coalition may develop by which views of our congregations may be expressed." Addressyourresponseto: VCL,c/o Bethlehem Lutheran, 1300 Saint Francis Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95409.
CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
As pastors and worship committees begin to program their offerings for the new Church Year, the issue of Timelessness vs. Timeliness must be faced. The excerpts below may help to make their decisions.
"Everyone has to mix politics and religion. Every culture develops its moral absolutes and social taboos on the predominant religious beliefs held by the majority of people in the nation. All laws in all nations reflect, to one degree or another, the religious view which holds sway in that nation. Nations controlled by Islamic faith have Islamic laws, those where Christianity predominates have Christian laws, and those controlled by a secular humanistic faith have laws based on the principles of secular humanism. The question is not whether we will mix politics and religion, but rather, whatreligion we will mix with our politics."
– James Kennedy, Impact, Coral Ridge Ministries
"People who say religion and politics should be divorced are in effect saying that religious people are the only ones who have no right to have their values reflected in the political system."
– Don Feder, Insight, 8/2/1993, p. 21
"I am not suggesting that the pulpit is the place in which precise political programs are framed or from which they are commended. Rather that it is the preacher's responsibility to open up the biblical principles which relate to the problems of contemporary society, in such away as to help everybody to develop aChristianj udgment about them, and to inspire and encourage the opinion-formers and policymakers in the congregation, who occupy influential positions in public life, to apply these high biblical principles to their professional life. ...The pulpit should help them to develop their Christian thinking and so to penetrate their segment of the human community more deeply for Christ.
"What is certain is that the pulpit has political influence, even if nothing remotely connected with politics is ever uttered from it. For then the preacher's silence endorses the contemporary socio-political conditions, and instead of helping to change society and make it more pleasing to God, the pulpit becomes a mirror which reflects con temporary society, and the Church conforms to the world. The neutrality of the pulpit is impossible."
– John R. W. Stott,
The Art of Preaching in the 20th Century, Between Two Worlds, p.167-8.
"What if all efforts to protect the unborn fail? What if homosexuals gel everything they are demanding? What if our democracy loses ground to abortion and same-sex relationships as it has already given ground to the saleof hard liquor, pornography, no-fault divorce, prayer in schools, Sunday laws, extramarital and premarital sex? What if the democratic principles that have been used to protect our religious freedom are used to accelerate our moral decline?
On the other hand, what if we become known more for our moral advocacy than for our love of sinners? What if we arc known not for the kind of love Jesus had for public sinners (Matthew 11:19), butmore so as a 'special interest' group seeking to withhold civil rights from abortionists and homosexuals?
Maybe it's time to remember that our calling has never been to remove the darkness around us, but instead, to be lights in a dark place (Phil. 2:15). Our calling is to be a 'society within a society" committed to dealing with any hint of sexual, social, or economic scandal within ourownranks. (ICor.5:9-13). Ourmissionistobringourselvesunder the rule of Christ and then to lead as many people as possible to the One who has changed our own hearts.
This is not to be critical of those whose conscience has led them to be social advocates. As American citizens we have a God-given opportunity to have ahand in the making of national policy. Let's just remember that our Lord* s strategy to save the world was not carried out by reshaping Roman or Jewish law. His strategy was to 'fulfill the law' by HislovC. His strategy was to risk Ilis own reputation by mixing with and then dying for the worst of sinners.
If we give most of our energies to our democratic rights, who will be the friend of sinners? Who will call all to Christ? Who will confront religionists who say they believe in God while depending on the law to do what only the Spirit of the Lord can doùchange people from within?
God will judge America for her national sins. He will judge our nation and all others. But first He will judge 10s own church (I Pet. 4: 17;2Tim.2:19). Hewillholdusresponsibleforwhctherwehavebecn 'blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.'" (Phil. 2:15)
– Martin De Haan, Times of Discovery
Reader Responses
A Reliable Bible For Today's Churches?
DEAR EDITOR:
I read your article "A Reliable Bible?" [Winter '93]. More and more I am coming to ihe view that the central issue internally for Christian churches todayùnot just the ELCAùis: "What do we mean when we say the Bible is reliable?" On Ihe one hand you have ihose who claim inerrancy and at the other extreme those who see the Bible message for Christians (New Testament particularly) formed by Paul and the early Christians and culturally conditioned. Forme the issues for churches to faccare: howrehableistheBible a) historically as facts, b) socially as guide, c) theologically as consistent, d) ethically as applicable for our time. Thanks for your article.
Rev. Dr. Omar StuenkeL, Albert Lea, MN
Right On - F.O.C.L. POINT!
DEAR EDITOR:
Greetings in the Name of the Lord of the Church. Your F.O.C.L.-POIN T quarterly is right on – praise God for people as articulate as you and the others who write to get out the Sure Word. rmjustheartsickconcemingthcELCA. Whathave they done with the Lutheran Church I grew up in and was called to serve? I feel like a stranger in what I thought was Christ's Body. Frankly, I'm betwixt and between. Hope is gradually being squeezed outùit seems as if just one sandbag is impotent to stem the onslaught of the terrible flood of heresy, humanism, situational ethics, social activism, etc. Biblical scholarship has pulled the plug on ihe Gtxl-breaihedncss of the Word, and itself comes across asadry wind. Tostay or leave – that is the question. Thank you for your clear right-on articles in the Winter edition, and the fine choice of authors andsubjeds. May Ihe Lord God Almighty continue to bless you so you can keep on being a blessing to 1 lis children and His Church.
Prof. Jacque Schweiss, Seattle, WA