Igniting a Moral and Spiritual Revolution
by George Barna *
More than 300,000 Christian churches dot the American landscape, and more than four out of five American adults describe themselves as Christians. But what kind of Christian body do we really have in America? How significant is the faith of Christians? And what difference does that faith make within our society? Do you realize that: Fewer than one out of every 10 born-again Christians possesses a biblical worldview that impacts his/ her decisions and behaviors?
Only 7% of our adult population has made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, believes that eternal life is only possible through faith in Christ, asserts that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, agrees that Satan is a real force that can affect people's lives and accepts the God described in the Bible as the only true God?
The people who believe Christianity is losing its influence in our society outnumber those who say it is gaining influence by more than a three-to-one margin?
Among the people who regularly attend worship services at Christian churches, half have not experienced God's presence in their lives at any time during the past 12 monthsand one-third of all regular churchgoers have never experienced His presence at all?
A majority of the individuals who made a first-time decision for Christ in the past year were no longer connected to a Christian church within eight weeks oftheirdecisionprimarily because churches have separated evangelism from discipleship, resulting in our spiritually abandoning people who express an interest in becoming devoted believers?
Although more than four out of five churches claim that evangelism is one of their primary reasons for existence, during the past 18 years there has been no statistically significant increase in the proportion of adults who are born again-even though churches have spent more than $500 billion on domestic ministry during that period?

The Quest for Distinction
If we were to be truly honest, we might admit that the problem with Christianity in America is not the content of the faith butthe failure of its adherents to integrate the principles of the faith into their lifestyles. For example, a recent study we conducted showed that born-again Christians substantially differed from non-Christians on just nine of the 66 variables on which we compared the two groups. Even more significant was the finding that Christians were virtually indistinguishable from nonbelievers on all 65 of the nonreligious variables we examined-matters of core values, defin ing attitudes and central behavioral tendencies. Until Christ's followers think and act differently, motivated by faith principles, the world has little reason to take our evangelistic exhortations seriously.
Time is of the essence in this quest for distinction. We are presently in an uncommon window of opportunity when major societal transitions have caused an unprecedented number of Americans to be spiritually sensitive and open. However, that window will remain open for only another three or four years. During this period, if the church does not engage the culture in a more relevant, practical and substantive way, we will abdicate the ability to influence American society for several decades to come.

One of Two by 2003
By 2003, one of two outcomes is likely to best describe America. One possibility is AMERICA THE SPIRITUAL. Today, people are desperately seeking meaning and purpose in life. They have tried materialism, sexual promiscuity, careerism, drugs, pop psychology and hyperleisure, but none ofthose pursuits havefilledtheirinnervoid. Now, millions are exploring spirituality to see if perhaps the faith realm holds the key to satisfying their needs. Many people could find the direction they are seeking through a vibrant, life-transforming relationship with Jesus Christ.
But the other possibility is the emergence of AMERICA THE MORALLY BANKRUPT. In this scenario, anything and everything would be permissible-morally, ethically, spiritually and relationally. America would be defined by moral anarchy. All that we do, say and think would be based solely upon its perceived immediate, personal benefit. America would devolve into a society in which people refuse to recognize or live in obedience to any laws, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, courtesies or norms unless they feel like doing so. This lifestyle choice will result in widespread disappointment and discouragement because people will have no sense of belonging to a larger entity, no sense of the common good or of community. America will lose its position as a world leader because we will be so selfish and so self-focused that societal progress will be negligible. The American Dream will turn into the American Nightmare. As a committed Christian, I am urgently praying for revival. As a rational social scientist confronted with a warehouse of behavioral and attitudinal data, I am expecting moral anarchy.

The Power of Christ
Can anything prevent moral anarchy from consuming America? Absolutely! The power of Christ in each of us can literally transform a culture by completely changing who we are and how we live. This implies that the church is the only real hope of a national moral resurrection.
But for the church in America to play such a role, we must rekindle our passion for God, recapture a sense of urgency about impacting the culture for Christ and respond strategically to the challenges before us. If the church does not rapidly realign its heart, mind and soul, and consequently redirect its efforts, we will lose our waning platform of influence in American society, leaving little to stop people from consistently pursuing the moral path of least resistance.
Christ has called us to be a loving, authoritative, healing and compelling influence upon the world, To be that church, we must tirelessly pursue holistic spiritual renewal. But that renewal will not be accomplished through massive initiatives and large institutions. It will be accomplished through hearts being changed and refocused, one at a time. For this moral and spiritual revolution to begin, your life must be the first to change.

The Real Difference
Christian/Non Christian
53% - 66% The main purpose in life is enjoyment and personal fulfillment
51% - 54% No mattter how you feel about money, it is still the main symbol of success in life There is no such thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in totally conflicting ways, but both could still be correct.
67% - 76% No mattter how you feel about money, it is still the main symbol of success in life There is no such thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in totally conflicting ways, but both could still be correct.
41% - 58% When you come right down to it, your first responsibility is to yourself.
91% - 86% You personally have a responsibility to share what you have with others who are poor or struggling.
61% - 64% Nothing can be known for certain except the things you experience in your own life.
80% - 83% God helps those who help themselves.
27% - 33% It's almost impossible to be a moral person today.
70% - 81% When it comes to morals, or what is right and wrong, there are no absolute standards that apply to everybody in all situations.
79% - 89% People are basically good.

A short sample from the questions in the Barna Report which formed the basis of the accompanying article, "Igniting a Moral and Spiritual Revolution."

A PUBLIC LETTER: to Bishop H. George Anderson and the ELCA Church Council:
We are asking you, as the elected representatives of the ELCA, to deliberate carefully and consider wisely the controversy which has developed and persisted in the ELCA over the proposed Episcopal/Lutheran ecumenical agreement. More than a year after the Philadelphia Assembly sent the proposal to a committee for retooling, it is clear that our church is still deeply divided on this issue, specifically by the demand that
Lutherans must adopt the historic episcopate in order to seal the agreement. We have seen and experienced this widespread controversy at every level of the church-in the Lutheran theological journals, at synodical and regional gatherings, at continuing education events, on Lutheran college and seminary faculties and in local congregations.
We the undersigned are not all of Igniting a Moral and Spiritual Revolution.

Concerns with Process.
1. We have heard enormous frustration expressed at every level of our church about the absence of opposition voices in the pages of The Lutheran, at synodical assemblies, at the hearings in Philadelphia, etc. The vast majority of Lutherans feel that there are two sides to every issue, that they deserve to hear both of them and that thus far they are hearing only the voice that favors adoption of The Call to Common Mission (CCM). We must remember that the ELCA has made no decision on this question.
There is no official position. These are only proposals to the church, and it is essential that differences of opinion be heard and respected. The charter of The Lutheran is to represent the church's diversity of opinion, and the responsibility of church leadership is to foster healthy discussion, not to present only one side of proposals. The suppression of dissent in the current discussion may very well have masked the breadth and depth of discomfort within the church regarding these proposals.

Tip of the Iceberg
2. There is wide-spread concern that this agreement is the tip of an iceberg and lying just beneath the surface and out of sight are many undesirable structural, programmatic, theological and liturgical consequences which it will be impossible to reject once the agreement is passed. In fact, this concern is well founded. We would do well to emulate the Norwegian Lutheran Church which insisted, prior to signing the Porvoo agreement with the Anglicans, on a precise list of the consequences of that ecumenical agreement.
3. The question many Lutherans are asking is, "Why we are being forced to adopt the historic episcopate? Why can't we ask our Episcopalian brothers and sisters to accept our current ministry structures as valid, and why can't we do the same for them?" This is a valid question, and one which should not have been asked behind closed doors. Lutherans should publicly and clearly ask this of our Episcopal colleagues, and they should publicly and clearly answer.
4. The five-year-Iong ELCA Ministry Study was a comprehensive attempt to study the nature of ministry in order to help the ELCA effectively fulfill its mission. In 1993, in response to the Study, the ELCA overwhelmingly affirmed our Church's current understanding and practice of ministry. The Churchwide Assembly specifically re-asserted the historic Lutheran position of "one indivisible office of Word and Sacrament ministry." The current proposed agreement with its demand for Lutheran adoption of the historic episcopate overturns the decisions of the ELCA Ministry Study and the 1993 Churchwide assembly without the due order and careful consideration which preceded the 1993 Assembly's decision.

Two Questions
5. Called to Common Mission suffers from a major structural problem. The proposal asks the church to make two qualitatively different decisions with a single vote. The church clearly wants communion with the ECUSA; it is not clear that the ELCA wants to alter its traditional polity and structure. These two questions need to be separated and serious theological work needs to be done to decide the ecclesiological question, Le. what is the nature of the Church and how should it be organized? There are many ways and public forums in which the ecclesiological question could be addressed throughout the ELCA.
First and foremost should be the pages of The Lutheran, which could feature a series of articles, over the course of the next two years, geared toward the laity and written by teachers and leaders who are both for and against altering traditional Lutheran polity. Other options for public discussion could include invoking the old tradition of "free conferences," or having the independent journals like dialog, Lutheran Forum and Lutheran Quarterly sponsor a symposium which might culminate in a book and study guide on the topic.

Concerns with Content.
Essentially, ELCA ratification of the Lutheran/Episcopal accord has failed because of the inclusion of the historic episcopate in each and every version of the documents. Concerns about the historic episcopate among Lutherans fall into four categories:
The "historic episcopate" is. an historical fiction which cannot be clearly demonstrated from either Scripture or the breadth of traditions in the early church. Lutherans understand it to be, at best, something that might be beneficial to some churches in some specific contexts, though perhaps quite inappropriate in others.
Lutherans have never understood the historic episcopate to be essential for the validity of the church. Nor have Lutherans in America ever independently given serious consideration to adopting it, a choice always available to them. It is important to note that even where the historic episcopate is practiced among Lutherans, e.g. in Sweden, it has never been elevated to the same level as Scripture, the two sacraments, and the two ecumenical creeds. But the [Episcopal Church's] Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral does precisely that. This statement of Anglican theological convictions is unequivocal on this point.
Lutherans, however, who have the historic episcopate and Lutherans who don't, have had no difficulty in mutually recognizing the validity of each others' ministries and engaging in close cooperation on many different levels. Why can't a similar arrangement be reached with the Episcopal Church, USA? To bind American Lutheranism to the historic episcopate ties our hands for the future, when our history shows that though we hold public ministry to be of the essence of the church, we have always remained committed to a flexibility in the form of that ministry.

A Flexible Ministry
That flexibility is essential for effective mission, and there is, in fact, little evidence that the historic episcopate is a model of organization well-suited for the mission challenges of twenty-first century North America. Even if we put the best construction on the historic episcopate, that its function is to maintain order and doctrinal unity in the church, the current state of worldwide Anglicanism is surely testimony to the inability of the office to do just that. At least two bishops within Anglicanism, at present, publicly deny the historic teachings of the church and promulgate their denials through vigorous writing campaigns.
The Lutheran-Episcopal ecumenical proposals communicate [the idea] that there is nochurch without bishops. Furthermore, GGM simply presupposes, without question, that episcopal organization is the most desirable church structure for Lutherans, and that implementing it should therefore be our ultimate goal. These inferences and presuppositions are contrary to what the Lutheran Confessions teach on this matter.
The significant structural implications of GGM in essence prioritize this particular ecumenical relationship above all others, including those already approved.

What about possible compromises?
We are aware of two categories of suggested compromises that you may be asked to deliberate upon.
1. The first category of compromises pertains to the actual concept of historic episcopate. Some are suggesting that a change of name, from "Historical Episcopate" to "Evangelical Episcopate," would solve the problem; others, that receiving the historic episcopate from Swedish Lutherans rather than Episcopalians would do the same. Both "solutions" miss the point of the theological objections: that adoption of the historic episcopate (which demands a significant alteration of Lutheran structures and understandings of ministry) is still required for an agreement with the ECUSA. In other words, the issue is not what we call it, or where we get it from, but the fact that we must adopt it.
2. The second category of compromises has to do with the concept of "right of conscience." Some are suggesting that Lutheran pastors or bishops who are opposed to the historic episcopate be granted the right of conscience to refuse it. Of course, only seminarians who are about to be ordained will need to exercise the right of conscience. But the gross power inequity which exists between seminarians seeking a first call and their bishops and synodical committees, calls into serious question the viability of a "right of conscience" clause.

Viable Solutions.
Where do we go from here? Is there a way to turn this from a lose/lose to a win/win situation? We believe there is. Given the enormous controversy surrounding this issue, we believe that it would be a grave mistake to transmit Galled to Gommon Mission to the church at this time. However, there is another possibility.
The current Interim Sharing documents that bind Lutherans and Episcopalians in common ministry do not demand that Lutherans adopt the historic episcopate. Yet they do witness to a mutual respect for each other's structures and practices of ministry. Much cooperation and mission has occurred on the basis of that mutual respect and there is no reason that this cannot continue. Many Lutheran churches are in a covenantal relationship with Episcopal churches and have discovered not only their common faith, but ways to proceed with local mission and outreach apart from further unification. Since we have achieved such a significant level of unity apart from the historic episcopate, we can and should trust that the Spirit of God will yet disclose to us ways to proceed without forcing the issue at this time. We believe that the vast majority of Lutherans and Episcopalians in this country would immediately warm to such a compromise: an agreement to recognize that our respective understandings of ministry define us but do not divide us.
Of course, there may be some Episcopalians who simply cannot agree to such a compromise, given their selfunderstanding. We believe that those Episcopalians who cannot affirm the present validity of Lutheran structures of ministry must be granted the right of conscience to refuse cooperation with us. We Lutherans must respect that right of conscience and pray for the day when full, mutual and unqualified affirmation of each other's historic ministry traditions is possible.

Sincerely,
Rev. Mark Chavez, Peace Lutheran Church, Glen Burnie, MD.; Dr. Walter Bouzard, Prof., Wartburg College; Rev. Lowell O. Erdahl, former bishop, Sf. Paul Area Synod, ELCA; Dr. Mark Granquist, Assoc. Prof, Sf. Olaf College; Dr. Tim Huffman, Prof, Trinity Lutheran Seminary; Dr. Walter Huffman, Prof, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Dr. Cynthia Jurisson, Assoc. Prof, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago; Rev. John M. Koehnlein, St. John Lutheran Church, Westminster, Md.; Rev. John G. Lynch, Community Lutheran Church, Pasadena, Md.; Rev. Dr. Robert J. Marshall, former president of the Lutheran Church in America, and Senior Scholar in Residence at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago; Dr. Roland D. Martinson, Prof, Luther Theological Seminary, Dr. Edward K. Perry, former bishop of the Upstate New York Synod of the ELCA; Dr. Ted Peters, Prof, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, editorofcflalog; Dr. Jay Rochelle, St. Timothy Lutheran Church, Allentown,Pa.; Dr. Paul Rorem, Prof.,Princeton Theological Seminary, and Editor of Lutheran Quarterly; Rev. Kenneth Sauer, former bishop of the ELCA Southern Ohio Synod; Dr. Lee E. Snook, Prof, Luther Seminary, Rev. Clarence Solberg, former bishop of the North Pacific District of the American Lutheran Church; Rev. Kathy Vitalis, Hope Lutheran Church, Fargo, NO.

'The above REFORMATION LETTER is the text of a public letter to ELCA Bishop H. George Anderson and the ELCA Church Council, from t19 individuals., sent last November 1st, 1998. Signature names are available from the office of FOCL-POINT upon request. Lutherans want REAL Ecumenism,
by Dr. David Preus

Thank you very much for calling this assemblage. I'm delighted for this kind of an opportunity, for the opportunities have been too much onesided in the other direction. And I'm delighted also that once again I can be with Dr. Robert Marshall with whom a great many wonderful experiences are in our mutual history.
A snippet of history is in order. (I wanted to say, too, that Dr. Marshall and I have been in no collusion and I'm going to read what I have to say so that you can recognize that it was done before I got here.)
A snippet of history is in order. To my chagrin it makes clear the political astuteness of those who have nursed the Lutheran-Episcopal dialogue to its current status. Lutheran participants in Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue #2, with the complicity of the then heads of the church, Marshall and Preus, made clear the Lutheran readiness to accept the Episcopal Church, its ministry, it's sacraments and enter in what was then called "pulpit and altar fellowship" with the Episcopalians.
It was clear that it was the Episcopal rejection of the Lutheran proposal that prevented full, mutual communion. The Episcopalians avoided being the negative ones at that time by proposing, in 1982, the Interim Communion which has been in being, since then. By so doing they avoided the ones of being the nay-sayers.
In Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue#3, however, enough Lutheran participants joined the Episcopal representatives in desiring the Episcopal succession (You remember Lutherans voted 5-3) to turn appearances around. Now the Lutherans were put in the negative position. It does not change the fact, however, that it is the Episcopal refusal to accept each other as we are that is causing all of the current hardship.
There are profoundly Lutheran objections to the Concordat. They are not because Lutherans do not like or respect Episcopalians. Rather Lutherans stand ready at any time for a full, mutual acceptance of each other's churches, sacraments and ministries. The Lutheran objections stem from the Episcopal requirement that Lutherans accept the Episcopal ordering of ministry. The Concordat requires Lutheran clergy to be ordained according to Episcopal orders in order for full communion to exist between Episcopalians and Lutherans. Unless Lutherans assure the Episcopalians that all future Lutheran ordinations will meet their standards, which includes special ordination for bishops, an ordination into the episcopal succession for all pastors, the Episcopalians will not enter, which is now called, full communion.
The Reformation brought many things back into focus. One of the important results of the Reformation was the re-capturing of a direct Word of God line from God, through Christ, to individual believers. Such a reformation was necessary because a system had developed whereby the Church, through its specially endowed ministry, was the intermediary between God and individual humans. A specialized priesthood had been created without whom faith could not be properly initiated or sustained. This priesthood was credentialed by specially ordained bishops. As time went on, these properly ordained "professional priests" were declared to be the only ones who could "confect" the Lord's Supper or perform baptisms. The order of salvation proceeded from God, to Church, to believer. The Reformers, instead, saw the process as God to believer to Church. The phrase the "priesthood of believers" resulted from just such an outlook regarding the character of life in Christ.
The Word of God is the instrument by which the Holy Spirit creates faith, and God's Word is not tied to any particular priesthood. Believers assemble to be the Church and to choose persons from its ranks to be preachers and teachers and administrators of its Sacraments.
A second major objection is that the Concordat requires Lutherans to accept, in terms of practice, an addition to Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession. This Article declares that which is necessary for the unity of the Church, namely, agreement in the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments. Article Seven says nothing about ordination or ministry. Article Seven remains totally consistent with Lutheran insistence on the central justification article. The Concordat says that something else is necessary. Namely, ordination of clergy into episcopal succession. The Concordat requires the Lutherans to acquiesce to the Episcopal understanding of ordained ministry by requiring at least these following items: Commitment that all future ELCA bishops will be ordained/installed in a rite in which episcopally ordained bishops participate in the laying on of hands, thus assuring that it is a proper, Episcopal ordination.
Secondly, a commitment that all future ELCA clergy will be ordained by properly ordained bishops.
Third. ELCA commitment to a future adoption of the three-fold ministry. There are Lutheran clergy who desire the episcopal ordination into what they understand to be the historic succession. I confess that it was a surprise for me to discover that it was so. But, it is! They believe that Lutheran freedom to adopt the best possible form of Church orders should enable us to join the Episcopalians in their version of apostolic succession. However, Lutherans are not choosing Episcopal orders because they believe it is the best ordering of ministry, but because the Episcopalians are requiring it before full communion to exist. Does anybody think for a moment that we would be in this business of choosing, that ordering of ministry, apart from a requirement being laid down by another Church?
That fact makes no difference for those who want Lutherans to be in the historic succession. It makes a great deal of difference for those of us who believe it a departure from Lutheran theology and practice and who believe it is a weakening of the fabric of the whole people of God.
There are outgrowths of Episcopal ordering that are objectionable to Lutherans. Such ordering, I believe, is inherently hierarchical and undercuts the understanding that the Church is the priesthood of believers.
A second ordination into the ranks of bishops cannot but be perceived as an institutional elevation. The perception of the Church as a caste system with bishops at the top, lesser clergy in the middle, and laity at the bottom is inevitable. Even if servant language is used, there would be a hierarchy of servants. It is true that we have difficulty keeping such thinking at bay in the existing Lutheran communion. However, Lutherans have been able to be theologically insistent that there is only one priesthood of believers that includes the entire people of God.
There are many important objections to the Concordat and you will hear them today in addition to those mentioned, though I suspect there will be considerable unanimity on the primary objection. The first is already apparent in the way the ELCA's agenda ... (no, I wish to mention two more that believe will be continuing plagues) .The first is already apparent in the way the ELCA has been focused on this matter of ordained ministry. I believe the Concordat, passed, will assure a continuing church focus on questions of ordained ministry and church organization.
Second, I believe the Concordat will result in ecumenical loss. The rest of the mainline Protestant churches have made it clear they will not acquiesce to Episcopal insistence on episcopal succession. It is beyond the pale for conservative Evangelical and Pentecostal churches to even consider such an eventuality. In adopting the Concordat, ELCA Lutherans will have
My hope is that Lutherans will approach the unity question with a reconciled diversity stance. If I may borrow from Lee Snook, who is going to have his own say, I think his description of the Church as a baobab tree is helpful. Let each of the churches that clearly affirm the apostolic faith live as they are in the confidence that all who confess the Triune God are attached to the same trunk. Lutherans can understand themselves to be in full communion with fellow Christians whether other Christians are ready to claim that or not. It will not change the fact of our being attached to the same tree: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. Thank you.

Transcript of a presentation made by Dr.

David Preus to the February 8 and 9, 1999 national conference Upholding Lutheran Confessions at St. Andrew's Lutheran Church, Mahtomedi, Minnesota