heading

• Home
• ← Events & Happenings
• Contact Us
• Papers & Docs

I cannot foresee with confidence the future of the ELCA. I can express some hopes and fears and cite some societal trends that I believe will do much to shape the future for the churches.

But first let me state some personal factors that help inform my opinions.

One, I am a solid, loyal, hopeful member of the ELCA.

Two, you may remember that in the 1980’s, while president of the ALC, I expressed the opinion that a merger into what became the ELCA would be fraught with difficulty. It was not that I thought one of the predecessor churches was better or more faithful than the others. Rather it was the awareness that the churches had differing histories, interests and polities that would not easily mesh. I proposed alternative ways to express the unity of the churches without the dramatic upheaval of a total merger. The overwhelming majority of ALC members believed the merger route best. I accepted that judgment and did my best to help the ELCA get off to a strong start.

Three, I have never imagined that the ELCA’s life in its early decades would be anything but difficult, often contentious and confusing, but always finding ways to express itself as a fellowship of Lutheran believers.

Four, some of the difficulties the ELCA is experiencing would be present even if we had stayed in the previous alignments.

Five, I have always been supportive, or at least accepting, of most para-church organizations, believing they help keep the church on an even keel. I cite the many semi-independent Lutheran mission societies, social service entities, and theological groupings that provide special services or that require the church to wrestle with serious matters in the life of the church. Churches are prone to lurch one way or another. Para-church groupings such as Word Alone in the battle over the historical episcopate help the churches keep an even keel. They lift up issues that are important to the life of the church and insist that the church is not to be a top-down, monolithic organization establishing its will from the top. I always, however, view such groups as loyal dissenters and not as persons taking their first step on the way to leaving the ELCA. The only time I would think of leaving the ELCA would be if a decision were made denying the heart of the faith, such as the Triune God or the saving work of Christ. On matters of lesser importance I may be a reluctant dissenter, but a schismatic, no!

Traditional beliefs and practices are currently vying with galloping change for the future of the ELCA. Tradition and change always rub up against each other but the rapidity of contemporary change brings the church one contentious issue after another. Right now change is in the ascendency. Latitudinarianism is in the air. Let a hundred flowers bloom! Hang on to your cherished central traditions if you will, but accept that the Christian faith is just one of the many ways that God is at work among people. Rejoice in the multi-religious movements that are present. Exult in the ability to change hallowed folk-ways and traditions. Do not idealize unanimity, but applaud diversity.

In the face of such movements I expect the ELCA to stay a solid, confessional Lutheran church. But in the ELCA we will be sore tested by temptations to adopt either a fortress type isolationism or “everything is equally good” latitudinarianism. It will be important and often difficult to find ways to live together without endless bickering or quick judgmental anger.

Let me very briefly point to central areas of the church’s life where tradition will find difficulty in adapting to change.

The ELCA is a Christian Church of the Lutheran sort. I believe most ALC members, including its leadership, seek to be faithful to the Lutheran Confessions, try to see how those confessions inform the church in days of riotous change, and express their uncertainties in various and often contentious ways. I believe the overwhelming effort in the ELCA is to maintain the unity of the church while struggling to find responsible ways to deal with many important but not church-dividing issues.

Buffeted about by the hurricanes of contemporary change, the church retains strong mooring in its commitment to the essentials of the faith as expressed in the Lutheran Confessions. I know of no Lutherans who deny God as triune, or Christ’s saving grace, or believers’ membership in the great church of Christ.

Of course, the church’ beliefs, and the individuals who hold them, are under attack all the time. We are all tempted and frequently have to live with something less than certainty. Latitudinarianism can be very attractive. Something called “spirituality” that is all feeling and no root attracts many. An endless array of theologies, each calling for loyalty, joins with the standard pride and greed and self-righteousness in seeking to lure us into loyalties far from our traditions. That which keeps us together is not total agreement with absolute certainty, but the willingness to struggle for common confessional ground and agreement on the fact that there are many important differences that are not confessional in character.A perceptive article by George Will dealing with tradition and change appeared in the newspaper a few days ago. I thought there were two warnings for the church, one explicit and one implicit, in his article on the Episcopal Church. His last two paragraphs are especially pertinent for the church’s thinking and discussion and I quote them.

“The Episcopal Church once was America’s upper crust at prayer. Today it is ‘progressive’ politics cloaked---very thinly---in piety.”

“Episcopalians’ discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.”

Obviously Will is on the side of traditional certainties. Hence he warns against a theological “inclusiveness” that leaves the church “elastic” with respect to its doctrinal base priorities. The “elasticity” then makes it easy for the church to espouse a “progressive politics cloaked---very thinly---in piety.” I believe Will speaks the opinion of many in that statement. The second warning, for me, is not obvious in the statement but is implicit. It is a warning against a fundamentalism that invokes doctrinal “certainty” as a club over the heads of those who believe change is necessary.

Let me describe a handful of ways by which I see the ELCA debating whether to hold fast to the traditional or to move on with change. I will do so in a handful of settings, recognizing that other groupings could be registered.

The ELCA is a worshipping community

Of course that is the case. God is, and God is to be worshipped. There is no debate about that in the ELCA, nor do I think there will be. However, how we worship God, especially in our corporate worship, is another matter. I grew up like many others assuming that proper corporate worship required the opening hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy” as the choir marched in. In our lifetimes we have seen venerable traditional forms of worship increasingly set aside in favor of what our parents would have described as modernistic assaults on true worship and which we call “contemporary” worship. Worship forms should not be static is the argument. Keep them moving. Meet the people where they are. Look back into the history of the people of God and see the many different manners of worship throughout the course of history. Hang on to the centrality of worshipping God, but make room for a multitude of ways of worship. One way is as good as another. Let each person find what suits him or her.

It gets complicated. Many of us prefer traditional worship. Many others find traditional worship rigid, antiquated, and boring. Contemporary worship for some is simply an attempt to use forms that will connect with a new generation. For some that requires Sunday worship to be entertaining. For others a charismatic preacher is essential. Others want to express their faith feelings in ways that traditional worshippers find inappropriate. The geographical parish is no longer a reality in urban America. People find a congregation whose worship life especially suits the individual or the family.

Worship ought to be a way to express and build up the unity of the church. Now we have to find our unity in great worship diversity. Some leave one congregation for another whose worship life is more congenial. Congregations respond by having both traditional and contemporary services. How does the church find unity and strength in a mélange of worship styles? The church needs worship traditions and the church needs worship change. A new hymnbook every few years trying to wed tradition and change does not settle the matter. I think the ELCA has to find ways to adopt worship diversity without losing its Word and Sacrament core.

The ELCA is a Missionary Church.

I believe ELCA people overwhelmingly understand themselves to be part of a local and global missionary movement. Most take for granted the importance of starting new congregations and being partners in global mission. On the level of our own personal witness Lutherans tend to limit themselves to their own families and congregations. Overt, verbal witness has always been difficult for Lutherans. Contemporary changes have made it tougher. Globalization has made it tougher. Multi-cultural neighborhoods make it tougher. Population increase with urban density makes it tougher. The necessity to live together peaceably makes overt witness tougher.

What is appropriate when our communities receive immigrants who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and others? How does the church send missionaries to countries where proselytizing is forbidden by law, where telling the gospel story to anyone but a Christian believer results in deportation, imprisonment, or in extreme cases, death? Contemporary society has become deeply aware of the importance of maintaining personal private space. Is it appropriate to invade the private space of any other person, and if so how, and when? Do we take our place alongside fundamentalist conservative Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and others who barge uninvited into others’ lives, including our own? How do we be instruments of witness to God’s gospel without being unwanted intruders?

I worry that the ELCA sends and supports fewer lifetime, full-time missionaries to foreign lands. That has been our tradition. Yet I am aware of the difficulties involved and the necessity for indigenous churches to take responsibility for local witness. I have confidence that the brothers and sisters serving on boards and staffs of ELCA missionary agencies are trying hard to maintain missionary momentum. Their task is increasingly difficult, especially when resources dwindle. I think it a simple fact that each of us has to live in forgiveness for our failures at personal witness.

It will not be easy for the ELCA to maintain the missionary mentality. The questions are endless, the answers unclear. Loyalties and uncertainties will surely be in conflict.

The ELCA is made up of members and its ministries are undergirded with money provided by the members.

Lutheran membership and very likely money will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. Traditionally U.S. Lutheran churches have experienced steady growth in membership and income. No more! The traditional sources of membership increase have diminished. There are few Lutheran immigrants to swell the ranks. Lutherans are typical Americans in family planning, which means fewer children. Membership loss is heavy as populations shift from rural to urban and from north to south. Lutheran churches have been strongly rural and northern. Most churches, Lutherans included, have not found ways to claim growth in the densely populated core cities. Lutherans, in general, are reluctant evangelists. I do not believe it is Lutheran unfaithfulness that has been the primary cause of membership loss.

One phenomenon that has affected Lutheran numbers and that has ongoing effect in both church and state is the amazing growth of Conservative Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Much of their growth comes from Mainline Protestant, including Lutheran churches. Obviously they have something going that is attractive to others. I have neither time nor ability to make a detailed analysis of this reality nor do I want to be unduly critical. However, I am deeply concerned about the theological fundamentalism that is rigid, self-righteous, and foreign to a church that focuses on justification by faith. Lutherans will be required to make theological response to these movements while insisting that the one church of Christ endures in many forms.

Loss of membership means loss of money for the extended ministries of congregations. Traditionally the national church has been able to think in terms of modestly increasing income. In recent years the ELCA has not kept pace with inflation. Given the current national financial crisis it will be a triumph if the ELCA holds its own on the income front. Yet providing congregational resources, missionary activity, educational strength and many other ministries requires money.

On the positive side for the ELCA many congregations remain strong and growing. I have been in many congregations since leaving office and have most often been thrilled by the strength and spirit of the congregations. Many of the larger congregations are directly initiating outreach ministries that are local, national and global in scope. They are cause for gratitude, encouragement, and hope.

I think the ELCA will have to be a spirited church of outreach that is glad for its history, confident in God’s guidance, and, like many of us, striving to do more with less. The church at it’s best is spirited and confident and full of faith in the future because of faith in the Triune God. There is evangelizing and service to do. Christ’s church carries on with enthusiasm whatever the times bring. It is a matter of the Spirit.

The ELCA is a church with a strong social ministry.

U.S. Lutherans have a tradition of strong social ministries at both personal and organizational levels. Local congregations started schools, hospitals, orphanages, and senior citizen homes for instance. Many of them are still church supported and operated. The work of the churches has resulted in society taking over many of these works as a public responsibility supported by taxes, and we can be glad for that. Still the church responds vigorously to its social service responsibilities and opportunities. Look at the breadth and depth of Lutheran Social Services and Lutheran World Relief and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services.

The responsibilities of the Christian Church go beyond ministries of mercy. The people of God are summoned to do justice. A prophetic Christian ministry should both praise public attempts to do justice and be a critic of public failures to do justice. That requires the church to venture into areas of uncertainty, contention, and importance. Thirty years ago I encouraged the national ALC to engage its members in contentious public issues of war and peace, poverty and plenty, private and public responsibility, without requiring win/lose votes. Let the churches’ theological voices be raised in pro and con format as a teaching method enabling church constituency to carry informed opinions into the public arena. If the church is to take a hard and fast position-of-the-church stance on contentious issues let it require an overwhelming majority to do so, like 90%.

I think the ELCA’s current system for developing social statements is flawed and certain to cause more trouble than help. I think the ELCA should seldom, if ever, develop social statements that allow the presumption that the statement is “God’s clear teaching.” I think the church’s theological faculties should play a much greater role in developing social statements, particularly in areas of predictable disagreement. My recollection is that in previous church bodies social statements were referred to the theological seminaries for review and input. We have a body of theologians not only to use their scholarly and practical experiences to train new generations of pastors but also to provide the church with learned counsel in areas of serious disagreement. Committees formed to develop such statements should have greater theologian representation and the best possible articulation of contending theological understandings. I believe it of crucial importance that the church’s social statements should flow from its Lutheran theological roots. If there are significant theological differences, let the church constituency see and understand what they are.

I recently read a paper by Carl Braaten that lifts up an important distinction in thinking about the current sexuality statement. He makes a strong case that the statement is flawed throughout by rooting ethics in the gospel instead of the law. Had theological faculties been engaged in the process I am sure that this matter would have been subject to serious debate and discussion. Instead, he argues, the statement accepts uncritically the assumption that ethics is to proceed from the gospel and not from the law. It would have been best to have such issues wrestled with by the church’s theologians before a statement is presented to the congregations.

Traditionally Lutheran churches took unto themselves the responsibility for critical social issues. Now the question is how the church gives voice in the public arena to its concern for social justice. I believe the question will agitate the church for years to come.

The ELCA is ecumenical.

Traditionally churches tended to look at any differences and begin anathematizing each other. That has been changing for a long time. The enemy model gave way to a live and let live model that acknowledged that other churches were Christian. In my lifetime the ecumenical spirit has moved rapidly into a let-us-visibly-express-the-unity model. I revel in the ecumenical spirit that has brought Christians of different sorts into warm fellowship and much joint work. The attitudinal change is phenomenal and for the good.

We barely know how to express the unity among Lutherans. Contentious voices call us in differing directions. For me the primary issue is between the search for an all-inclusive organic unity and a unity expressed in reconciled diversity. I am a vigorous exponent of the second of those possibilities. The CCM issue is familiar to all of you and indicates the continuing ecumenical difficulty. Sometimes change comes fast. Sometimes it requires centuries of gestation. I see no ecumenical quick fix. I do see the possibility of steady change as Christians recognize each other as members of the family.

The rapid pace of societal change in our day will continue creating ELCA contention between tradition and change. It is crucial that there be distinctions made between matters that strike at the heart of the faith and those that are comparatively on the periphery. The latter ought never to be church dividing.

Soli Deo Gloria.

© 2008-2009 TCWordAlone, et al