What’s At Stake?
By Dr. Jeffray Greene
Since the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans came into being, there has been an understanding that all is not well with the church. Continuously there has been issue after issue that has plagued the church. Why is there no end to controversy?
There are two divergent viewpoints that drive a wedge between what is meant and what is understood when someone says they proclaim the Gospel. That Jesus came and died for sins is not in question; but what this means in the lives of the faithful has provided differing answers.
The literal quality of the Bible telling how God created the universe and the order under which it exists contrasts greatly when you stop and query what is meant by one group versus another. Because the systematic theology of Barth accepts the view that Scripture is just a human book God uses to introduce His plan, it introduces the idea that we should not get caught up in too literally in the application of what is contained in the book. Good principles, there is no denying, but it is the Spirit who will guide and direct the individual into a higher understanding of what God intends personally. Contrast this with the historic understanding that God has chosen a specific means and method of communicating what His will would be for humanity and you begin to see that there is a clear-cut difference not only in application, but in understanding.
This is not to support the kind of absolute literalism that is understood through the current use of the word ‘fundamentalist,’ which requires rabid legalism and doctrinal conformity. With the advent of modernism, there have been increasing degrees of separation between two primary groups within Lutheranism. One group, who more closely follow the historic understanding and use of Scripture utilized by the theologians at the time of the Reformation, and the other which has stepped off from this place and followed an understanding that has developed through existentialism, demythologizing, critical methodology and other avenues of understanding God’s redeeming act in the world. Is the opening the church feared that Origin left open and has been avoided over the centuries? Increasingly, it seems as though these two diverging viewpoints are reaching for an permanent impasse. Is this the last opportunity to prevent the kind of break that occurred during the Reformation where the church deeply divided? Or is this just a stepped-up pace for division? Scripture teaches us that a house divided cannot stand. But at what cost should we strive for unity?
When describing the group who feels they most closely align themselves with the Sixteenth Century Scriptural hermeneutic, one has to be careful not to get to carried away with literalistic interpretation of Scripture. God declares that He will gather His people like a hen gathers her chicks. Does that mean God is a chicken? This is one (amongst many) of the glaring misuses of Scripture by the Mormon church. Going to the other extreme is equally galling. How often do those who are dismissive of the Romans 1 text declare that the reason they can be so dismissive is that we no longer require women to cover their heads during worship. How we interpret the Bible and what authority we claim it has is essentially the difference that has created our current tension. Setting sexuality aside, we are in an argument over Scripture as the Source and Norm for faith and life. More truthfully, there are two primary ways in which Scripture is interpreted by Lutherans in the ELCA. The first, arguably, is more commonly found residing in the average person in the pew, while the other is found primarily in the seminaries, among a large number of clergy and in the leadership of the denomination.
Taking our cue from Barth, we see that the experience of faith, using existentialist language helps us discover Christ. It sounds like what was discussed by those who were called gnostics in the early centuries of Christianity to the orthodox. A ‘superior’ knowledge which appeals to those who feel they have indeed found a superior way of understanding how God reveals himself. One of the ways used to new initiates of looking at theology in this way is to ask the question: “Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute?” At first thought, the average person ponders the speculation of this question. A best-selling book picks up on this theme and people read it pondering whether or not it is true. It doesn’t help when there are numerous authors who take the opposite extreme and proclaim ‘secret’ codes hidden in the text. However, if the gnostic gospels, written in the second and third centuries, are utilized as a source (remember that from this viewpoint, Scripture is the jump-off point), we see that an argument against any kind of legal moralism being substantiated. If Mary was not a person of ill-repute, there was no need for her to repent, and her relationship would have been based solely on her love for the Lord in pure motivation and not in response to a gift resulting from forgiveness. Christ invites, we accept and the eternal relationship begins in the here and now. There is nothing to repent and no need for repentance.
The logic of this kind of thinking is at the heart of the article quoting Andree Seu, and her statement, “I don't obey Scripture, I discuss it.” Indeed, if Barth is right in his attempt to theologize a compromise to keep the church from further dividing and the Bible is just a human book that God uses, then we are being disobedient to God’s wishes if we behave as the Pharisees, being ‘legalists, whom Jesus rebuked. Those who are passionate about understanding the Gospel in this way want to ‘save’ others whose theology is ‘wrong’ and dangerous. This discussion begs the question: “What is the core of the Gospel?”
What is the Good News that Christians proclaim? Is it that Jesus died for our sins? Self-proclaimed Christians do not argue this point. But we can ask whose sins are forgiven and why. If we ask, as Luther taught us, “What does this mean?,” referring to who are saved, we find quickly that there are two theologies living side-by-side in the church today.
The law condemns the sinner and declares that he is unable to make recompense before God. Jesus comes and pays the unpayable price. All who turn to him are saved. What’s involved in the turning? Is a life of obedience required, or is it just an acknowledgment of Christ which is needed? What do we do with the law? Which set of declared rules are in the body of the law. Is the law completely fulfilled in Christ so that nothing else need be done, or do some laws still apply. If we no longer require a woman’s head to be covered in church, how can we say that homosexuality is a sin? If we make legal declarations at all, is what we are doing an offense to what Christ accomplished?
In order to more easily understand the quandary of what has happened, we need to see the two sides of anti-synergism. On the one hand a supralapsarian inability to be anything other than God’s puppet is contrasted with a rigid fundamentalism that requires a Pelagian adherence that outdoes even the most ardent legalist. Both propositions have been understood as anathema by Lutherans. Arguably, Luther’s finest yet most difficult to understand work, Bondage of the Will, delves into understanding how the Gospel works in the believer.
It can be argued that the weakest link in theology has been in answering the question of how one is sanctified? Are all saved because of what Christ has done, or are just those who enter into a relationship with Christ saved through what he has done? Both questions are answered affirmatively in Lutheran churches in the ELCA, as well as in churches in many mainline denominations. Both cannot be right. It cannot be that just some and all people are saved through Christ. Herein lies one of the primary issues providing the current tension. How do we reconcile, or if that is not possible, mitigate such contrasting understanding of what the Gospel means?
Underlying the difference are accusations of triumphalism versus intellectual superiority, universalism versus legalism as well as other contrasting labels applied to adherents of particular viewpoints.
In order to provide an increased sensitivity to the deliberation at hand, let’s look at the continued debate related to understanding Scripture currently being continued in the secular realm in the National Geographic Magazine. In their November issue, an article asking if Darwinism was a dead issue, they said, “ If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's (referring to evolution) "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.”
Once thought a ‘dead’ issue, the concept of intelligent design, as it is now known, harkens to the day when Scripture was declared inerrent as a reminder that God spoke authoritatively through the Bible and declared His hand in creating the universe. As Luther reminds us in bondage of the will “Because they are all ungodly and unrighteous and hold the truth in unrighteousness.” It is true that we have all gone astray. It is not what we think that matters, but what God declares that provides the Word of life. Repentance is an integral and necessary portion of the Gospel. Without turning from ourselves toward God, there can be no forgiveness. We have not created this story that we call the Gospel, it is God’s story revealed.
What’s at stake? The heart of the Gospel. Each of us needs to be able to give an account of the hope that is within us. We are saved by only one faith, that is the faith that has been given us from above, revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of the One True Lord, Jesus Christ.
Search for Christianity’s Essence
Compilation from “The Story of Christian Theology”
Roger E. Olson
Olson (Ph.D., RiceUniversity) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of BaylorUniversity in Waco, Texas. He has contributed to such publications as The Scottish Journal of Theology and Perspectives on Religious Studies, and he also serves as editor of Christian Scholar's Review.
For Schleiermacher, theology no longer dealt in facts, but only in values. Traditional beliefs that might conflict with modernity such as the virgin birth, Jesus’ nature, miracles and second coming, and realms of angels and demons and heaven and hell were all gradually relegated to the dust bin of ancient theology through neglect or radical reinterpretation. On the other hand, at least now no one would be burned at the stake like Servetus in Geneva for questioning orthodox doctrines. Quite the contrary. Once liberal Protestant theologians controlled seminaries and divinity schools, scholars who insisted on teaching orthodox doctrines as facts would often be excluded as old-fashioned obscurantists.
A second common theme was the moralization of dogma. Under the influence of Kant, liberal Protestant thinkers insisted on reinterpreting all doctrines and dogmas of Christianity in ethical and moral terms, and those that could not be so reinterpreted were neglected if not discarded entirely. The deity of Christ could be moralized as an expression of his moral influence. He brought the kingdom of God into human social history as an ideal.
The third common theme is the universal salvation of humanity. Almost entirely missing from liberal Protestantism was any acknowledgment of radical sin and evil or of God’s judgement, wrath and hell. The latter was reinterpreted as states of conscientiousness when humans are alienated from God and God’s kingdom by their own decisions and actions. It is not that God judges them so much as they judge themselves.
Once the full impact of liberal Protestant theology was felt, a stern reaction erupted from theologians committed to forms of Protestant orthodoxy. Out of Protestant orthodoxy arose a militant theology of reaction against liberal theology and modern through in general that came to be called fundamentalism. Historically and theologically, then, fundamentalists were those Protestant Christians who defend entire, detailed systems of very conservative doctrines against perceived modernist, liberal encroachments and dilutions, and they often call for and practice separation from Christians who are guilty of participating in or condoning modernism in theology. More often than not, fundamentalists insist on belief in the supernatural, verbal inspiration of the Bible, absolute biblical inerrancy with regard to historical and natural as well as theological matters, a literalistic biblical hermeneutic, and strong opposition to any and all deviations form these principles or fundamental beliefs of conservative Protestantism.
Liberal Protestant theology borrowed heavily from Enlightenment philosophy and especially Kant’s critical idealism and moral objectivism. It was foreshadowed by Locke’s rationalism and Deism’s natural religion and influenced heavily by Hegel’s religious philosophy of Absolute Spirit. Fundamentalism and conservative evangelical theology stood on the foundation laid by the Princeton theologians Hodge and Warfield and looked to Thomas Reid’s common sense realism as their common philosophical framework. Neo-orthodoxy (Barth and Brunner) attempted to rediscover a pure theology of the Word of God free of any dominating philosophical influence.
Barth opposed the orthodox Protestant view of the Bible found in Turretin and Hodge and others who insisted on the Bible as primary revelation in propositional form. He rejected propositional revelation – the idea that when God wishes to communicate to humans, he communicates information in truth statements. He especially rejected the idea of biblical inerrancy. The Bible for Barth was human through and through. It is a book of human testimony to Jesus Christ, and in spite of all its humanness it is unique because God uses it. According to Barth, the statements of the Bible can be wrong at any point.
Barth is the primary systematics taught in ELCA Lutheran seminaries, and one can see how there is a contrast between the orthodoxy proclaimed in the pew and the theology preached in the pulpit as taught in Lutheran seminaries. This compendium is published to provide a basis of understanding for the reader why there is such seeming contrast in the ELCA today between what is said and what is understood when we say we are confessional and orthodox.
Simple faith
From Andree Seu’s Dec. 4 World Magazine Editorial
I have received a book in the mail by a widow writing on widowhood: He Said, "Press," by Patti McCarthy Broderick. Let me say that I never read books about widowhood or the Christian life by people whose day job is housewife. I like books by lettered authors with titles like The Twentieth Century or Postmodernism. Leave me alone with my personal life. Let's talk epic themes. But I promised I would read it so I did.
Gnosticism is thought to be a dead church issue: A clique of second- to fourth-century guys thought the writings of Paul were quaint, and good enough for the Christian rabble, but for themselves were superseded by a secret inside track to God through mystical channels far more sophisticated than obedience to Christ's simple commands.
Patti Broderick has written a very simple book about her journey. She cites verses like the following and makes much of them:
"I know that You can do all things . . ." (Job 42:2). "Consider how the lilies grow . . ." (Luke 12:27-28). "This happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God . . ." (2 Corinthians 1:9). "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness . . ." (2 Peter 1:3).
Ms. Broderick figures that when the Bible says "suffering produces character and character, hope," it means that suffering produces character and character, hope. I, on the other hand, have interposed a baroque system of hermeneutics between the Bible and my life. I have seminary training. Unlike simple people who obey the Bible because they don't realize how complicated it is, I find ambiguity in every verse. I don't obey Scripture, I discuss it. (Emphasis the editor’s.)
Davey and Goliath
NEW YORK (AP)
The Lutheran Church is reviving the 1960s-era animated series for a holiday special, “Davey & Goliath’s Snowboard Christmas.” In the modern update Davey tries to show off his snowboarding prowess to two friends: Sam, a Jewish boy, and Yasmeen, a Muslim girl. The Rev. Eric Shafer, communications director for the ELCA said, “The church wanted it to be about love and tolerance, and that’s not the face of Christianity in America.” He also said, “In the 60s and 70s, Christianity was more of a liberal faction. There are still millions who go to church, but they are not represented on TV any more.”
Shafer said, “Davey and Goliath is very much an interfaith show about the oneness of the three faces of Abraham.”
Structural Question
It is being bantered around by various groups in the ELCA how to provide a place where there can be a sense of safety from the continuous controversy that is constantly in our denomination. Some have called for a non-geographic synod, others have discussed similar ideas centering on a confessional synod. The last time there was this kind of discussion, Word Alone birthed Lutheran Church Mission for Christ, LCMC, which was declared another denomination by the ELCA’s secretary. Although the initial intent was to create a place of safe haven for congregations that felt they needed to distance themselves from the heirarchy, they ended up being another Lutheran denomination.
Is there a way to provide a voice for those who are not in agreement with current leadership positions that is not manipulated or silenced through current governing policies within the ELCA? This is a legitimate question. “Sit down and be quiet,” is what has been heard for years, accompanied by, “Can’t we talk.” After so many years of hearing the “Let’s talk,” accompanying the “be quiet,” trust has been shattered. For many, it seems as though it’s just going to be a matter of time before the GLTB agenda is finally adopted as church policy. Sit folk down long enough, keep them silent and eventually they’ll wear out. But the trust is broken and the feeling of being manipulated has created a desire to remain a part of the denomination, yet find a place that is safe from those who would manipulate into a contrary understanding of what it means to be the church.
The fear is legitimate and the concern is real, but are those who govern the ELCA listening? It is not a group of malcontents who desire to undermine the church, but folk who are committed to being the church together who are fearful of being manipulated into something that is, for them, apostasy. Is there a way to provide a safe venue for all concerned of ‘being’ one church?
License to Leave
World Magazine, December 18, 2004
St. Luke’s Community Church in Fresno, California, can keep its church property. The California Supreme Court declined to review a landmark appeals court ruling in August that St. Luke’s had the right to retain its property when it left the California-Nevada regional conference of the United Methodist Church in 2000 over doctrinal differences.
The conference cited a clause in the UMC law saying all church property for the denomination (even if no UMC funds were used to acquire and maintain it). A number of breakaway churches over the years had lost their property due to trust clauses, but St. Luke’s chose to fight. Under state corporate law, the court said, a church that enters into a trust has the right to revoke it.
UMC officials say they are considering an appeal to the federal courts. They warn that not only the UMC but also other mainline denominations are at risk. In California, scores of dissident churches could start heading for the exits.
August 28, 2004
St. James, others told to recant
The diocese sends a letter giving three seceding parishes a Monday ultimatum.
Deepa Bharath, Daily Pilot
NEWPORT BEACH — Attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles sent a letter on Friday to three Southern California churches, including one on Via Lido, demanding that they surrender their respective properties to the diocese by Monday morning or immediately acknowledge the bishop's authority.
The three churches — St. James in Newport Beach, All Saints' in Long Beach and St. David's of North Hollywood — announced their secession from the Episcopal Church of the United States on Aug. 17 and placed themselves under the Diocese of Luwero in the Anglican Province of Uganda, Africa.
St. James Church broke away because of the Episcopal Church's refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and its refusal to accept the supremacy of the scriptures, Pastor Praveen Bunyan said. The churches also oppose the Episcopal Church's liberal view on homosexuality and its appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as the Bishop of New Hampshire.
The letter, sent by attorneys on behalf of Bishop J. Jon Bruno, states that the churches have defied the bishop's authority by continuing to hold worship services and conducting business under the aegis of the Diocese of Luwero. Attorneys say the churches have violated both state and canonical law by continuing to operate on property that rightfully belongs to the diocese.
The letter also demands that St. James and the other two churches "immediately surrender control of the parish corporation and parish property to the Bishop and those congregants who have elected to remain as faithful members of the church."
Another option, according to the letter, is for the churches to abide by a list of rules and conditions laid out by the diocese. That list includes holding no more services, conducting no more business and using no more printed materials such as the Book of Common Prayer. Additionally, each church must provide a current financial statement along with copies of all bank account and investment statements and other financial records, attorneys say.
Bunyan said he is still "digesting" the contents of the letter.
"I'm not surprised by it, though," he said. "They're trying to do what they believe is right. And we'll continue to do what we believe in."
The church and the surrounding property on Via Lido is and has always been held by St. James, a nonprofit corporation formed in 1949, he said.
"They can say what they want to say," Bunyan said. "We have the deeds and the documents to prove it."
It will be business as usual at the church, he said.
"Our services will go on as always on Sunday," Bunyan said. "We will be responding to this letter through our attorneys."
The issue is bound to be dragged to court, where a long-drawn, emotional legal battle awaits both parties, said Peter Haynes, pastor of St. Michael's and All Angels Episcopal Church in Corona del Mar.
"It's going to be lose-lose battle for all sides involved," Haynes said. "It's going to leave bitterness in the hearts of people for whom that property is sacred. But at the same time, you can't force people to live in a house where they don't want to live. It's a shame."
A Troubling Recommendation
Dr. Jeffray Greene
In Orlando this summer, the Churchwide Assembly will be asked to vote on the ELCA Task Force’s recommendation concerning standards for sexual conduct for rostered leaders. The first recommendation declares the issue is divisive and continued deliberation is needed. The second recommendation declares that we should continue with no ‘legislated policy’ with respect to this issue. The third is a troubling recommendation.
“The Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue under the standards regarding sexual conduct for rostered leaders as set forth in Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, but that, as pastoral response to the deep divisions among us, this church may choose to refrain from disciplining those who in good conscience, and for the sake of outreach, ministry, and the commitment to continuing dialogue, call or approve partnered gay or lesbian candidates whom they believe to be otherwise in compliance with Vision and Expectations and to refrain from disciplining those rostered people so approved and called.”
At first glance, this recommendation seems reasonable. We’re a church divided and to separate over this dilemma poses the problem of promoting disunity. Our Lord prayed that we would be one even as He and the Father are One. But what is the unity Jesus prayed for and does this recommendation uphold the kind of unity He meant?
There are endemic problems introduced through a non-policy that is a policy. When we declare that we are a constitutional church, we submit to constitutional principles, not least of which is that we are subject to ‘Caesars’ rendering of how a constitution is used. The corporate structure implied by declaring ourselves constitutional means that we do not invent how to use the constitution as we go along. There is a history of how a constitution is used in a corporate structure. We cannot say one thing and do another without introducing the very real possibility of creating gross liability.
Our church states that it is to “provide for leadership recruitment, preparation, and support in accordance with churchwide standards and policies” (S6.03), further declaring the need to “provide for discipline of congregations, ordained ministers, and persons on the official lay rosters” (S6.03.c). When we passed the amendment to the constitution a couple of Assemblies ago to grant to the bishops the right to “exercise solely this church's power to ordain approved candidates who have received and accepted a properly issued, duly attested letter of call for the office of ordained ministry” (S8.12), it was understood that we would “agree to call pastoral leadership from the clergy roster of this church in accordance with the call procedures of this church or to receive pastoral leadership from the clergy roster of this church if there is no called pastor” (CAW 7.21.d.) and that we would “provide for a competent, committed ordained ministry and professional lay ministry in this church.” (CW 11.1.d.)
If we grant permission to set aside discipline, we, in affect, grant sole authority to the individual bishop the right to declare who is and who is not fit to serve as a rostered leader regardless of understood qualifications. It can be argued that such a move provides the reality of no longer being a confessional church, but an autocratic church governed by the few who know what is best for all.
A lesson learned from an autocratic organization. We know that the Roman Catholic Church is being held liable for the decisions of its leaders to be pastoral in dealing with the sexuality of its rostered leaders. Even though pastoral decisions were made, they are still liable for wrong decisions. That liability has caused bankruptcy and restructuring in the Roman Catholic Church. To be sure, the issues surrounding sexuality may be different in kind, but the issues of liability are not. When a corporate structure defies the rules of governance, liability still remains in the eyes of the law. When we walk together in synods, we carry the liability of the whole.
Some might say that granting permission for exceptions to those who do not live up to the standard of our set policy is the same as the exception granted to those who are not ordained in the historic eposcopate. But the exception to opt out of the episcopate has been granted as a legislated act. Recommendation number two in the Task Force’s report requests that there be no legislation, so by that simple statement, it states that any bishop who would allow for any irregular ordination or licensing would be in contempt of the Assembly, legislating pastorally in defiance of set policy. Are they recommending that some have the power to just wink at our own governing documents while flagrantly disobeying them? What kind of witness does that provide when we are making this recommendation for the sake of ministry and outreach?
Will future potential leaders be immediately disqualified if they vocalize intolerance of leadership that is not in compliance with Visions and Expectation? Will this become another criterion of acceptance in order to become a leader in the ELCA?
We have a great division in the ELCA. Introducing one more layer of uncertainty generates mistrust of our church leadership. This is not productive or helpful to our mission. Talking about the issue until one side capitulates will not resolve the issue either. Granting autocratic authority to bishops won’t resolve the issue. “Trust our leadership,” is the cry, but such an attitude is dangerous when there is no accountability for decisions that are made on our behalf and when bishops can legislate by allowing non-disciplined violations of our current qualifications for rostered leadership. We empower the few to make decisions whether or not we find them acceptable and remain fully liability for the decisions that are made.
Consider that by declaring that no policy is requested through this recommendation a simple majority of the Churchwide Assembly is all that is required to accept the recommendation. Its one step closer to what is desired by those who seek change without the obstical of a two-thirds vote. By accepting this statement, a new policy is, in effect, established. The new policy gives new meaning to the sole authority recently granted our bishops to ordain. A bishop would now have the mandated ability to ‘allow’ ordinations of those who do not live up to Visions and Expectations if even by ignoring the ordination in place. This has a chilling effect by opening us to a new level of liability.
Setting aside the specific question of sexual identity and practice, we need to consider what a new policy of non-policy does to our ability to discipline when it is needed. A leader in the church could cry discrimination if a bishop who allowed another leader to be ordained in place in violation of our current policies while that leader in question was involved in illegal or (as is it still agreed upon) immoral behavior. If one pastor is not disciplined for violating church law, how can another pastor be disciplined for violating another portion of church law. If we allow irregular ordination in one place, can we remove a pastor in another if he has an adulterous affair, embezzles money or even molests a child? Even if we continue, as we have in the past, disciplining these grievous violations of what is expected of rostered leaders, can we not be held liable for discrimination because we punish some while allowing others to continue unpunished? The courts, as we have seen with the case in Texas and in their dealing with the Roman Catholic Church would not be inclined toward ‘pastoral’ decisions in matters of discipline. The recommendation presented by the Task Force is not as reasonable as it at first seems. It is troubling at best.