Emancipation

By Governor Albert Quie

When discussing the future of the ELCA and its polity, I often try to make a point by making a hyperbolic statement." In twenty-one years in the Congress of the United States I never found anyone smart enough to tell me what to do." Does that sound arrogant – especially since there are people smarter than I am, both in and out of Washington? Of course, but my statement is made to point out that permitting the exercise of inappropriate authority over oneself is not responsible behavior.
We, who follow Jesus Christ, live in a kingdom and in a republic. In a kingdom the ruler exercises authority over the hearts and lives of his people. We accept this in the Kingdom of God. In a republic, the supreme authority rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote.
In worldly kingdoms, as Luther knew them, representatives of the ruler exercise the power of authority. In a republic, that power is exercised by representatives chosen by the citizens. In the Kingdom of God, different from either of these two, power is exercised by all that belong to it, since they were saved by the grace of God through faith in His risen Son, the Supreme authority. That is recognized as, and is called, "the priesthood of all believers." The question for us as members of the ELCA is, should power and authority be exercised in the ELCA with similarities to a republic of this world or to a monarchy of this world?

Christ as Lord
The difference is quite apparent. As we grow in Christ and grow in responsible maturity, we realize that Jesus never insists on obedience. Yet if we do not follow and obey Him, we move away from the recreating power of Jesus' redemption. So, letting Jesus tell us what to do is always liberating.
Obedience in the world's monarchies, however, is not always liberating. In them, the people lived in fear of the ruler and his representatives. When a man could say "You shall!" or "You must!" it could break the human spirit.
In a republic, by contrast, disobedience can sometimes be liberating. When I stood up against my own Party and my Caucus by supporting the Fair Employment Practices Act, it was liberating. When I stood up to the President of the United States and convinced the Congress to adopt my version of the Higher Education Academic Faculties Act instead of his, it was liberating. My version included support for Church-related colleges. Or this example: when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, it was emancipating.
The problems we are encountering in the ELCA go back to one fact especially: when this church was established, we chose the wrong form of governing ourselves. It was like the pre-1776 polity of our country. When the U.S. constitution was carved out, it provided that its "highest legislative authority," i.e., the Congress, may propose amendments, which will only become valid if ratified by three fourths of the several States. The people must ratify state constitutional amendments. The reverse is true in the ELCA.
A congregation's constitutional amendments must be ratified by the Synod. Synod constitutional amendments must be ratified by the Church-wide organization. But nobody ratifies amendments to the Churchwide Constitution. So it stands that the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) can tell the Synods, congregations and people in the pews what to do. But the voting members at the CWA are instructed that they should vote as they desire, because they do not represent the people who elected them and sent them to the CWA.

ELCA's Polity Should Be Changed
I believe that the vision espoused by this nation when the republic was formed ought to direct our ELCA. "Government...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" means representative governance. "All... recreated equal" means equality in representation. Contrast the condition in the ELCA: one grouping of 46,000 members in the Minneapolis Area Synod elects 9 voting members to the Churchwide Assembly another 46,000 group gets to elect only 4 voting members).
To test to what extreme this has been carried in our church: members in the CWA are not allowed to place printed material at the seats of fellow members! That is not "freedom of speech". (Can you imagine if my colleagues in Congress tried that?)
The last point I want to make is that if the ELCA governed with the principles of a republic, it would necessitate better communication. Jesus commanded those in his kingdom to pray because he wants us to pay attention to Him. If we do that we will more likely listen to Him. By the same token if the ELCA governed "with the consent of the governed," there would be more oral and written interchange between those who exercise power and those who should have the authority granted in the priesthood of all believers. They are our fellow members of the Kingdom of God. They are fellow members of our congregations. Dealing with controversy and concepts of freedom and responsibility is hard work and painful. Certainly in the church, we should not have less confidence in people who regularly worship and listen to the Word of God with us, than does the secular government when it rests its ultimate authority in its citizens.

* Mr. Quie is the former Governor of Minnesota and an 11-terms member of Congress in the House of Representatives. He serves as one of the distinguished members of FOCL's Advisory Board.