Setting The Church's Agenda

By Bishop James Crumley

To say that the church is in trouble has become almost a cliche". This evaluation is made of denominations both individually and together. Within our society the church as a whole is in trouble.

What criteria are used to measure the effectiveness of the church? This may be a clue to the problem. They may be in terms of organizational or institutional effectiveness: loss or increase in membership, financial stability or growth, the solidity of the church's turf in the public sector, influence of the church on political or economic policy, the church's "image," its authority, and whether the church as an institution can be trusted. The conclusions as to the health of the church are derived from statistical studies and projections, sociological analyses, or management goals. It is possible lo gauge the church's performance solely in terms usually applied to organizations or social entities.

Church leadership of times is cowed by such analyses and sets out to answer from me same sociological perspective. Thus the reaction to a declining membership is to find ways to attract more members. Financial constraints issue in schemes to raise money. Leadership may strive to make the church more influential by seeking the centers of power, and then it likes to report visits with heads of state or others who make policy decisions. The church may attempt to restore or build public confidence by retaining consultants to build a public image.

So the church becomes involved in building all types of pro grams, and promoting all kinds of causes. It attempts to be "all things to all people." But the question remains as to how effective the proffered solutions are.

Many of the most loyal people in the church are proponents of this approach. The church as institution, they insist, is a human organization and therefore must use the same criteria as any human organization. The primary question then becomes, "What works? What produces results?"

I contend for a different point of view. The church is human and organization, yes, but at the same time it is divine and communion, a communion of members with God and with one another, because the church possesses the signs by which it is known: Word and Sacrament. For this reason the primary question must be changed from "What works?" to "How can the church be faithful?"

A different set of criteria must be used lo measure the church's vitality. These include the question of self-identity. What is the church? What does die Lord of the church expect the church lo do – what is its mission?

The church is an organization and needs to be effective organizationally. But its reason for being is in another and higher place. While the church may be in trouble, be in decline, that should lead us to think not primarily in terms of organizational effectiveness, but in the church's being true to itself and thus to its Lord.

We are not clear about the church in these dimensions. We lose our nerve by becoming servant to everyone's expectations. We are tempted to lose the theological and ecclesiological foundations for the church's existence.

I am convinced that these bases must undergird all the church does. Even in matters such as personnel practices and policies, the church ought to act like a church, not ape a corporate model. Church structures are under both the Law and Gospel of God. If Word and Sacrament "constitute" the church, to use the language of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry [WCC document] then they arc in the very warp and woof of the church's fabric. Any other approach divides the church into things spiritual and things material, and that dichotomy does not work theologically for the church any more than it does for the individual person.

I reflect on the work of the Commission for a New Lutheran Church (CNLC). Though its work is more than five years old, I think the problems that surfaced there still plague us. They arose from a pattern that was superimposed on the Commission's work, a pattern pervasive in our culture and society. We members of the Commission can reflect on the process used and the ways in which we became "captive" to attitudes, ideas and procedures that did not always serve us well.

The two articles at the beginning of the ELCA Constitution on the Nature and the Purpose of the Church are solidly confessional and describe correctly the Church's mission. But as the Constitution was being put together, these were some of the last provisions to be adopted. In fact, the article on the Nature of the Church was adopted at the last meeting and during the final minutes of that meeting! All the structural decisions had already been made. One decision of crucial importance theologically – the question of ministry – had to be postponed because we could not agree among ourselves.

While a Task Force on Theology was appointed early on, little discussion was held on their document and it was simply received as a "working document." Later in the process it was clear we did not agree on a basic ecclesiology [for example, concerning the doctrine of ministry] because that document did not contain the criteria by which the other decisions were being made.

Most issues were thus left completely open and could be decided pragmatically. As CNLC members we were totally in control so that we could adopt church structures as we pleased. "New church" also meant that we were searching for novel solutions which subjected us to the pressures of special interest groups. I argue that at least some of our present problems are the result of that way of looking at church and mission.

The analysis provided by Leslie Newbigin in his book. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society [Eerdmans, 1989] is most helpful. He defines the pluralist culture in this way:

"Pluralism is conceived to be a proper characteristic of the secular society, a society in which there is no officially approved pattern of belief or conduct. It is therefore conceived to be a free society, a society not controlled by accepted dogma but characterized rather by the critical spirit which is ready to subject all dogmas to critical (and even skeptical) examination" (p.l).

That pluralism 1 think has infected the Christian faith and the churches. So I want to examine some aspects of our ecclesiology and their relevance for setting the church's agenda.

The Constitution of the ELCA reflects sound and useful ecclesiology for evaluating the program and life of the church, but it has not been incorporated effectively. Here are only some of the pertinent paragraphs:

4.01: The Church is a people created by God in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, called and sent to bear witness to God's creative, redeeming and sanctifying activity in the world,

3.02: The Church exists both as an inclusive fellowship and local congregations gathered for worship and Christian service.

5.01: The Church recognizes that all power and authority in the Church belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, its head.

The Constitution acknowledges that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is not identical with the ELCA. Lumen Gentium [from Vatican 11] says that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church "subsists in the Roman Catholic Church." That would apply as well to the ELCA. The Church of the creed subsists in the ELCA, but the latter is not identical with the former. The ELCA has not captured the Church. These provisions of the ELCA Constitution show that high priority has to be given by the ELCA to the Church as one, apostolic, catholic and holy, separated unto and deriving its life from its head, Jesus Christ.

These constitutional provisions describe what is often called a "high" view of the Church. The Church is a grace-filled gift, not a human creation. The center of the Church's witness and proclamation is Jesus Christ Therefore the Church on earth is the embodiment of that reality. The Church is incarnational, it is the "body of Christ." That means that the life of the church as a structured or institutional unit is integral to the plan of salvation.

Particularly in the U.S., many who are not members of the church insist they are "believers." The church is tempted to become relevant to the people of this American culture by using their wishes and criteria for relevance, rather than the church's own. Evangelism then is driven by a market or consumer-oriented mentality. The church defines itself as able to "meet people's needs" – the needs of people who may have little or no recent experience in the church. And the church struggles to fulfil] their evaluation and expectations!

The church has a mission greater than meeting people's needs as they are seen and defined by the people themselves. Newbigin once more:

"In discussion about the contemporary mission of the church it is often said that the church ought to address itself to the real questions people are asking. That is to misunderstand the mission of Jesus and the mission of the Church. The world's questions are not the questions which lead to life. What needs to be said is that where the Church is faithful to its Lord, there the powers of the kingdom are present and people begin to ask the question to which the Gospel is the answer." (Ibid, p. 119).

For the church to understand the society in which it ministers is not only desirable but essential. However, for the church to assume that the society sets the church's agenda is suspect. Rather, the church confidently defines its task and develops its program on the foundation of its own identity and its mission.

To set the agenda of the church requires a focus, a concentration, and certainly it does not imply that the church must be shaped by the culture or society, nor can it be all things to all people. I conclude with Newbigin's corrective:

"Jesus manifestly did not intend to leave behind him simply a body of teaching. If that had been his intention he surely would have written a book and we should have something like the Koran instead of the book we have. What he did was to prepare a community chosen to be the bearers of the secret of the kingdom." (Ibid, p. 133).

"But where something else is put at the center, a moral code, a set of principles, or the alleged need to meet some criterion imposed from outside the story, one is adrift in the ever changing tides of history, and the community which commits itself to those things becomes one more piece of driftwood in the current." (Ibid, p. 148).

* Bishop Crumley was the head of the Lutheran Church in America at the time it merged with two other denominations to become the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He served on the Committee for a New Lutheran Church which drew up the merger documents and shepherded the new church into being. This article is excerpted from his address to the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, in April of this year, and is used by permission.