It's A Spiritual Sickness
by Jack Eichhorst, Ph.D.*
The quota system, Higgins Road Headquarters, bishops – we can rant and rave about them. They are only symptoms of the troubles in the ELCA. Trouble started with the predecessor bodies, long before the ELCA was formed. But because this is my church, in one way or another I share in its troubles, in its suffering and hopefully, in helping it into a more positive future. But getting there will be a painful journey.
TROUBLE NUMBER ONE
The first trouble, AUTHORITY, is a word on which many choke. It comes off our lips with a fear of authoritarianism. Whether it be in organizational matters, matters of doctrine or the Bible, we seem afraid of authority.
Such a negative disposition toward authority is rooted in the Enlightenment. Radical individualism has won. The church is made up of people bent on "doing their own thing," people with an attitude that "no one is going to tell me what to do."
Pop psychology has also shaped the public and thus the church. Knowing the truth is out; getting in touch with your feelings is in. We all know the lingo: "Feelings are neither right nor wrong; everyone has a right to his feelings." The lead question is, "How do you feel about it?" Feel good is the goal.
No small culprit in creating this environment has been the Clinical Pastoral Education movement (CPE). It is amazing how pastors rejected a "feeling" religion in Pietism, which at least had Jesus and the Bible as its corrective, but they then fell into secular sensitivity models, with virtually no internal correctives.
Under this influence we produce pastors who are "enablers" and "facilitators." The model has not been to preach and teach "with authority" (Mark 1:22), but to counsel and get at feelings.
Should we now be so surprised to be part of a church that has God-trouble? Surprised to find a gospel whose core is that God feels good about us, and so we should feel good ?
God, the supreme authority of heaven and earth, of alI things political and all things spiritual, such a God does not fit the culture or the church created in the past forty years. In this scheme a God who loves through law and judgment, a God who calls for obedience and submission, a God before whom we are by nature children of wrath, and who rightfully judges us – such a God does not fit!
This church does not have a theological headache; it is suffering from serious heart disease. It chokes on the central confession of the early church, namely, that "Jesus Christ is Lord."
Any church that becomes shaped by an anti-authorily posture must sooner or later live in rebellion against God. If Jesus Christ is Lord, the all-powerful "self" whose highest goal is "self-realization," must either bow or rebel.
The ELCA is filled with rebellion. See the search for other gods and goddesses. Official synod gatherings and assemblies invoke the god of the "fourdirections/' "andwhateverother gods there be." This stuff parades in the name environmental concerns and avant-garde "spirituality."
This deep spiritual sickness is precisely the kind addressed by the Old Testament prophets, Elijah, Jeremiah, and Hosea. We face a First Commandment problem; we are worshiping other gods. For this we need a prophetic solution. The call must be: "Repent and believe the Gospel."
TROUBLE NUMBER TWO
We are having trouble with the AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. Cod's book is not faring much better than God. Even referring to the Bible as "God's book" sounds specious in a church now shaped for decades by a principle of Bible-suspicion. In a church searching for other gods, it is not surprising to find a search for other books. We are driven not by "Holy Book" promotion, but by "Holy Book" demotion. Biblical illiteracy and ignorance are pervasive; biblical authority is up for grabs; Bible usage is sparse. Why use, why bel ieve, why trust, why put ourselves under a book that is simply another human document?
What can we expect but unbelief toward the Bible when for at least three decades we have been teaching in such a way as to provide our college and seminary students with reasons not to trust or believe it? Think back on all the efforts in Lutheran colleges and seminaries to knock the stuffings of pietistic or fundamentalistic views of the Scriptures out of students. We have had thirty years of critical overkill that has produced predicable results: skepticism, cynicism and rank unbelief about the Bible. Who will hand down our holy faith as teaching, as doctrine, as dogma, as Confession and as Scripture to be believed?
A generation of clergy shaped and frozen in this hypercritical disposition toward the Bible, now pastor our congregations. A biblically illiterate laity increasingly fills our membership rosters as "paper members", who warm our pews less and less. Those resembling "pietists" or "fundamentalists" – the twin enemies of this enlightened (!) ELCA – are on the endangered species list. Many have already taken a long hike to other churches. After ten more years offunerals in our congregations, the ranks of the stubborn faithful will be very thin indeed.
There is one thing we can count on in this church when it comes to doctrine and the Bible: there is openness, openness as long as the positions espoused are of the left. No wonder one sees more and more references lo the Bible as, at besi, "a guide" tor the ELCA. Compare that to such words as" inerrant", "infallible", or as "the" norm in all matters of failh and life."ù all words used for millennia in the Church to describe the Scriptures.
Should we be surprised that the Bible is a book into which preacher and lay person feel free to read their own predilections? In this world of the "counseling view of truth"ùhow 1 feel about the Bible and what it means – is just as good as how anyone else feels.
Even Luther himself has been enlisted in what might be described as a battle against the Bible. The Luther who exalted the authority of Scripture, who laid his own reason, heart and soul prostrate before Scripture, is forgotten. Likewise the Luther who was a man of constant, fervent prayer and devotion.
It is my deepest conviction that had the spirit of the present church, the ELCA, prevailed in the days of my youth, I would scarcely have become a Christian. I most certainly would not have become a pastor. I did not learn the Bible at my mother's knee, nor did I learn the faith from my father. Family prayer and devotions were not a part of my upbringing. Being a pastor would have ranked quite a bit below a used-car salesman on my list of aspirations.
But I came in contact with pastors who had a passionate love for Jesus Christ and who believed others should know him by faith as well. None of those poor souls knew studies in Bible Criticism. Some of them were certainly "Pietists;" maybe even some were "Fundamentalists." In a wondrous way, through that Book that was believed in by others, Christ came alive to me, and the desire to follow him, do his will, to use the Bible and to pray, was born.
For two years I entrusted my life to teachers in a Bible school. All had likely been ordained while subscribing to a statement of faith which said this book was "inerrant and infallible." Imagine the dangers to which they exposed me! Furthermore, I memorized Bible verses, even the whole book of Philippians. I learned how to talk to other people about Jesus Christ and learned to meditate and pray for one or two hours a day.
Subsequently, at a Lutheran college all my religion teachers opened their classes with prayer, a practice also followed by ail my seminary professors. When we studied Irenaeus and Origen in Latin and Greek I was treated with respect for recognizing Bible quotations that were not referenced. Later at the University of Muenster the radical critical approach of Professor Will Marxsen did not put me into a tailspin because I had come to know the Bible as a book of faith in a church committed to teaching the Christian faith as revealed in the Bible.
By contrast I now find myself to be part of a church where ultimately the Bible is trashed more than trusted – pious rhetoric not withstanding – and belittled more than believed. The same church that is filled with rebellion toward God is filled with rebellion toward God's book. Again the call: "repent and believe the Gospel."
TROUBLE COMES IN THREES
From the above it follows that we are in trouble over FAITH, both the faith which is the content of what is believed and the faith by which we believe. This too is a problem of authority. The church does not have or (does not know how to exercise discipline over what il believes and teaches. Under the influence of the twin ideologies of inclusivity and diversity, both of which are rooted more in the Enlightenment than in the gospel, there can be no strong, hard and fast norms. Inclusiveness has come to mean including almost any doctrinal or moral position.
In the Constitution of the ELCA we have rather strong declarations about what is to be believed by clergy and members. But how will this church make doctrine slick in concrete situations? What kind of doctrinal discipline can really be exercised with clergy and seminary teachers, for example?
Recall that in the late 1 950s there was actually a heresy trial conducted within the United Lutheran Church. Two Wisconsin pastors were charged with false teaching, one for – as I recall – denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the other for denying the Virgin Birth. It is beyond my imagination lo consider such a possibility in the ELCA today. In the early sixties the charismatic phenomenon hit mainline churches including the ALC. Out of concern for sound doctrine and the way false doctrine may destroy or corrupt faith, investigators were sent out to one of the major congregations where this phenomenon was manifested.
Were the same spirit of concern present in the ELCA today and were some of the same criteria of evaluation used – namely, judgments made on the basis of biblical doctrine – we would not have enough investigators to keep up with demand. Suppose the content of preaching were evaluated across the church or at conferences such as a recent one at which Sophia was exalted and addressed in prayer. Suppose that belief in the resurrection and Virgin Birth were to become our concern for orthodoxy. How far-reaching would such an investigation have to go?
Of course, "inclusivity" does not allow for everything. This is a one way street for drivers in the left lane. Several times in the past five years I have had contact with conservative seminarians who are concerned about getting past certification committees if they admit to believing that the Bible is inerrant or infallible. Plain and simple, we are in a serious crisis about the content of the faith that is to be believed.
The same is true about the faith by which we believe. The urgent Reformation concern about the sola fide has been lost in favor of an ideology of "grace as a principle". Ours is without question, a "cheap grace church". Faith that relates to new life and discipleship (discipline) has been drowned like a child's whistle by a marching band.
Much church practice, teaching and preaching seem to be rooted in a Creation-Universalism which claims that all humans are by nature saved children of God, or in a baptismal theology which says, "Once baptized, always saved." In either case, being related to God through faith may be of little or no consequence.
Faith that trusts Christ, faith that involves a new life in Christ and a walk by the Spirit, is most certainly not the stuff of church membership these days. Not a few of our parishes, especially those where cultural Christianity still has a hold, are full of "paper members", content with a church that baptizes, marries, and buries. It is a church life that reflects an embarrassment about Jesus. We are ashamed of him. Any resemblance between the dynamic discipleship and powerful witness of the early Christians as seen in the Book of Acts, and this present church, is purely coincidental.
Tinkering with structure and organization will not address these deep troubles. Abolishing the quota system, or shutting down the ELCA's Office of Governmental Affairs In Washington to save $536,000, would only get at symptoms. Trouble – with the authority of God which manifests itself as rebellion; trouble – with the authority of Scripture which produces relativism; and trouble – with the authority of the Church to exercise discipline - these must be dealt with at a deep spiritual level. Repentance and faith that respond to God's judgment (Law) and God's Gospel in Christ are needed.
FINDING THE WAY OUT
This call is not only directed to a select few members of an arrogant, triumphalist bureaucracy. Il comes to us all, lay and clergy. Together we need to cry out, "God have mercy; for Christ's sake forgive us; renew us by the power of your Holy Spirit through your Holy Word and the Holy Sacraments."
Given the sickness of the ELCA, and searching for a wise way to be of help to the church, I am persuaded the time has come to establish a non-geographic, churchwide synod, a New Partner Synod. No, not another denomination based on confessional grounds, but a synod where those committed to church renewal and an evangelical vision can band together as congregations, pastors, and laity.
This would not create schism, but would rather ward it off. Such a synod would provide a sense of community and fellowship for the conservative evangelically minded who arc being marginalized, isolated and alienated in this church. A wise ELCA leadership might see such a synod as a positive, saving possibility.
This synod could help the whole church set new priorities, for urgent matters such as starting new congregations, and doing world and local evangelization. It could also direct crucial resources to those seminaries responsive to the above-stated concerns. It could bring together in common cause larger congregations seeking independent opportunities to do mission.
This synod would have its own clergy roster, exercising some genuine discipline in matters of doctrine and belief. Clergy could join this synod, and congregations in the call process might have some assurance of being able to contact pastors who believe more than, "God is love, and God is nice, and Jesus his loving son, is even nicer." This synod could make biblical learning, discipleship and evangelization high priorities. It could even position "a house of studies" at several of the seminaries in order to encourage spiritual formation of its pastors.
Negatively this would assist those seminaries in coping with the authoritarianism of radical feminism and political correctness which is fast becoming the norm at some institutions.
Establishing such a synod would restore much hope lo those congregations, clergy, and individuals who have wholly or partially given up on the ELCA, and who are dropping out while staying in. Our times of crisis can become an opportunity. We are called to make a courageous witness not just in the world, but in ihe church and for the church, by being willing in a spirit of repentance, to stand against the church. i>
* EICHHORST is pastor of St. John Lutheran, Jamestown, N.D, and former president of the Lutheran Bible Institute, Seattle. This article is edited from and primed by permission of Lutheran Forum, vol. 28: 3.
Reformation Rallies Held in October
The Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans welcomed Dr. Walter Sundberg, eminent theologian from Luther Seminary, as speaker for its three October Reformation Rallies.
Sundberg, who has won wide recognition as a young stalwart defenderof the historic Lutheran faith, spoke on the theme, "Forward to the Basics," at FOCL's first Southern California rally, held at Grace Church, Huntington Beach.
The Northern California rallies were held at St. Ansgar Church, Salinas and at St. Timothy Church, San Jose. He also addressed local pastors convening at Concordia University, Irvine, and at Mt. of Olives Church in Mission Viejo.
Sundberg also preached on Reformation themes at Mission Lutheran, LagunaNiguel, and at Grace Church, Palo Alto. In both these churches he led Sunday Adult Forums on the biblically authentic Christian life-style. Program highlights at the various rallies included local church choirs and the vocal ensemble from Lutheran Bible Institute in California. FOCL is a voluntary organization dedicated to reclaiming the theological and ethical center for American Lutheranism by "encouraging biblical, evangelical and confessional faithfulness to our Christian heritage." Consonant with that purpose, Sundberg outlined six theses for church renewal: (1) We must not let ourselves be distracted from the truth; (2) We should preach the joy of Christ crucified; (31 We must preach the burden of Christ crucified; (4] We must hold lo the unchanging truth that the Scriptures are inspired by Cod; (5) We must attend to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in our life; and (6) We must remember Who is boss – the Lord Jesus Christ alone!
(Editor's Note: Dr. Sundberg's stirring address will be carried in the next issue of FOCI -POINT. Extra copies for distribution in our readers' local congregations should he ordered immediately from the FOCL office: 370/ Chamberlain Way, Carmichael, CA, 95608
PERSPECTIVES
Don't Settle For Second Best
by Molly Kelly*
When I am invited to speak to teens around the world, I am often also invited to speak to parents. I am grateful for such opportunities because I believe that parents are the most important influence in a child's life. 1 am the mother of eight grown children. I've been a single parent since my husband died when my oldest child was 1 2 and my youngest was 14 months. I realized early on that I would have to work harder than ever to give my six sons and two daughters a straightforward, uncompromised message about respecting their God-given sexuality. I never made sex out lo be something bad or dirty, bul ralher to point out that sex is merely our genderùmale or femaleùand that the sexual acl, which is only one part of sexuality, is an act to be saved for marriage.
What's happened today is what I call a cave-in on the part of some adultsùphysicians, health educators, pregnancy counselors and parents included. The magic word in today's society seems to be "dysfunctional," and when used in front of the word "family" it can mean single parents, parents with lower incomes, or parents from different ethnic backgrounds. Children from "dysfunctional families" receive a different message. As I travel the U.S. I have seen for myself that condoms are first made available in the "inner city" schools. The reason? It goes like this: "Those kids need them! You can't expect them lo wait until marriage or even to wait until tomorrow!"
The rationale is not only a putdown of young people; it's also a notion with built-in failure. The results have been tragic. If you tell children that they are ugly or dumb, how do you think they will feel about themselves? This wonderful generation ol" young people is being told by some of the adults who are authority figures in their lives that they can't say "no." Then they are told that they really don't have to, as long as they use condoms, pills, spermiddes and other "safe sex" paraphernalia!
Is there any form of contraception that can guarantee teens sex without consequences? No! If they use contraceptive "protection," they might not get pregnant – but then again they might. They might not get a sexually transmitted diseaseùbut then again they might. They might not contract AIDSùbut then again ihey might. In the dictionary, the word "safe" means "free from harm, involving no risk," yet there is no contraceptive that fills that bill. Some people are changing the term to "safer sex" (It's their way of covering the failure rates), but isn't that just as deceiving?
If the condom was never that great in preventing conception, how did if become so great in preventing death? It didn't! And what about the emotional and spiritual consequences? What can the condom do to protect a young person from fear, frustration, anger, rejection, guilt or despair?
I often ask parents, "Can you get AIDS from not using a condom? If you think you can, raise your hand." The response is always the same. The hands go up and heads nod in the affirmative. Then I ask, "Don't you have to do something else?" The lightbulb turns on as the audience realizes that contracting AIDS (in the vast majority of cases) has to do with behavior.
Our young people are being told that AIDS has to do with condoms but in truth, AIDS is about sex and drugs. "Keep on doing what you're doing," the teens are told., "but make sure you use a condom. If it fails (which is rarely mentioned), il's not your fault. It's the condom's!" Have you ever seen a condom with AIDS or a pregnant condom? Of course not. What we do see is people suffering from AIDS. We see people bearing the burden of unwed pregnancy.
Behavior is the cause of teen pregnancy and AIDS. Behavior is also the solution. Promoting condoms and birth-control pills promotes unhealthy sexual behavior and will result in unhealthy teens. Promoting chastity encourages healthy behavior and will result in healthy teens.
"Safe sex" or "safer sex" has been termed the "second best" answer to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease problems. Chastity is the first best answer because, if practiced, it never fails!
Parents, do you want to give your children the second best advice – which promotes sinful, harmful behavior? Or do you want to give them the best advice – from the mouth of God Himself? ft
* MOLLY KELLY is a lecturer, author and mother of six sons and two daughters. She speaks to thousands of teens each year in public & private schools. Reprinted from Living, Summer 1995.
READER RESPONSES
Dear Editor,
When reading FOCL-POINT I feel as though I may no! be alone. When I read stuff from Higgins Road, I often wonder whether I really have a church homo, fhank you for your efforts. I fully support Dr. Preus' suggestions for "RECLAIMING THF ELCA" [F-Pt, v5#4]. These propositions would be a good place for [the new bishop], Dr. H.George Anderson, lo start his review of the ELCA.
Besides the content, what I felt most alarm ing about the "Human Sexuality Statement" was its attempt to manipulate the reader <and to use such ambiguous language that almost anything could be claimed had it been approved. I felt that it was not only wrong but also deceitful.
Dr. Lowell Hesterman, Bloomington, MN
Dear Editor,
That was a very nice assessment of the ELCA Assembly in the recent FOCL-POINT. And I see, too, you also caught the "confused 80/20 divide over the issue of sexuality. II shows up in the next FORUM LETTER.
Pr. Russell Saltzman, Stover, MO
Dear Editor,
The real reason for this letter is to hold out my hand in congratulations to you for the fine ELCA Assembly report in FOCL-POINT. One just does not get that kind of information in the Lutheran or other publications.
On top of everything, my seminary contracted a professor who at the funeral service lauded the gay-lesbian lifestyle of a gay activist pastor who died from AIDS. My wife and I [had] included the seminary in our [will]. I wrote the President and told him that if this were true about the professor we would change our will and give if all to the humane society for cats and dogs – at least (hey can't influence people to go to hell. I got a phone call – "Take it easy, we are working on this problem," etc. As far as I am concerned, one does not work on these problems, one solves them. Sol write this note with heavy heart but thank you for your fine article – we keep praying that the Lord bless his Church.
Pr. Fred Wolff, Lincoln, NE
Dear Editor,
I have been rereading the articles "The Psychoanalytic Assembly" and "Revisiting the Gospels" several times. The latter is very comforting as I have been of the same contention since I read one of Dr. Francis Schaeffer's books, interpreting Acts 1 3:5 that John Mark was not a valet bul a "document handler." I delight also in the report by George H. Muedeking. Keep up the good work!
Walter Arp, Roman, MI.
Luther and the Bible
by Ralph D Winter.*
The yearly series of brilliant theological lectures and workshops offered by the Lutheran Bible Institute in California, under the Conference title, "Luther and the Bible," promises again to enrich both clergy and laity. The Conference will be held at two sites: on the Concordia University campus in Irvine, January 15-16, and at American Lutheran Church, Sun City, Arizona, January 17-19, 1996.
The Lenten preparation theme of "Suffering, Death and Resurrection", will be explored at the Irvine venue in three-lectures by The New York Times' "best-seller-iist" author of the suspenseful, A Skeleton in God's Close!, Dr. Paul Maier. He is Prof, of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, and recent author of Josephus – the Essential Writings.
At the same event Dr. Goran Larsson, director of the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem, will give two lectures on "God in the Valley of Death." And Dr. James McPherson. Princeton University Pulitzer prize-winner, will present his findings on: "The Shadow of Death – Testimony of Civil War Soldiers."
The Arizona event will feature the outstanding theologians, Dr. Walter Sundberg and Dr. Carl Braaten, together with an address by Dr. Ed Lindell, Vice President of Lutheran Brotherhood, who will speak on, "A Layman Looks at the Church". Dr. Ben Johnson, dean, and Clifton Pederson, president of LBIC, will complete the roster of presenters who address the issue: "Walking the Talk: Practicing Christian Life as a Lutheran".
Full information may be secured from LBIC, tel. 1-800-261-5242.
The Challenge of AD 2000 and Beyond
by John R Stott,
from The Manila Manifesto,
The world population today is approaching 6 billion people. One third of them nominally confess Christ. Of the remaining four billion, half have heard of him and the other half have not. In the light of these figures, we evaluate our evangelistic task by considering four categories of people.
First, there is the potential missionary work force, the committed. In this century this category of Christian believers has grown from about 40 million in 1900 to about 500 million today [1989]. And at this moment it is growing over twice as fast as any other major religious group,
[RW.: 570 million Bible-believing Christiansùthe potential work force in missions. It is a vast body of humanity that Is growing at least twice as fast as the fastest growing group that large, of Hindus or Muslims.]
Secondly, therearethe uncommitted. They make a Christian profession (they have been baptized, attend church occasionally and even call themselves Christians); but the notion of a personal commitment to Christ is foreign to them. They are found in all churches throughout the world. They urgently need to be re-evangelized.
[R.W.: 1,300 million other Christians, who need to be renewed in order to help in the mission task. This is the slowest growing block of humanity – dragging down the "average growth rate" of all Christians.]
Thirdly, there are the unevanqelized. These are people who have a minimal knowledge of the gospel, but have had no valid opportunity to respond to it. They are probably within reach of Christian people if only these latter will go to the next street, road, village or town to find them.
[RW.: 1,660 million non-Christians, already within the reach of Christian people. They need ordinary evangelism, not missions.]
Fourthly, there are the unreached. These are the two billion who may never have heard of Jesus as Savior, and are not within reach of Christians of their own people. There are, in fact, some 2,000 peoples or nationalities in which there is not yet a vital, indigenous church movement. We find it helpful to think of them as belonging to smaller "people groups" which perceive themselves as having an affinity with each other, e.g., a common culture, language, home or occupation. The most effective messengers to reach them will be those believers who already belong to their culture and know their language. Otherwise, cross-cultural messengers of the gospel will need to go, leaving behind their own culture and sacrificially identifying with the people they long to reach for Christ.
[R W.: 2,170 million non-Christians, outside the reach of Christians from the ranks of their own people. They live within "Unreached groups" where there is no viable, indigenous, evangelizing church movement within their nation, people, tribe or tongue. They need the special kind of evangelism called "missions".]
There are now about 11.000 such unreached people groups within the 2,000 larger peoples, so that the task is not impossible. Yet at present only 7% of all missionaries are engaged in this kind of outreach, while the remaining 93% are working in the already evangelized half of the world.
If this imbalance is to be redressed, a strategic redeployment of personnel will be necessary.
We are deeply ashamed that nearly two millennia have passed since the death and resurrection of Jesus, and still two-thirds of the world's population have not yet acknowledged him. On the other hand, we are amazed at the mounting evidence of God's power even in the most unlikely places of the globe.
Now the year 2000 has become for many a challenging milestone. Can we commit ourselves to evangelize the world during the last decade of this millennium? There is nothing magic about the date, yet should we not do our best to reach this goal? Christ commands us to take the gospel to all peoples. The task is urgent. We are determined to obey him with joy and hope, if
* JOHN R. STOTT is the world-renowned theologian, evangelist, preacher and erstwhile rector of All Souls Church, London. He edited the Manifesto. Ralph W Winter is the head of the U.S. Center for World Mission, and the founder of the movement, Theological Education by Extension (TEE). This article is reproduced from Mission Frontiers, V.17,# 5-6