« Redbook Badbook | Main | Editor on the Air »
August 13, 2007
The ELCA: “Another Sodomite Sect”
. . . . because my own theological viewpoint
is as opposed to the liberal Lutheranism of that school as it could possibly
be, it is most unlikely that the Lutheran School of Theology, if it is paying
attention at all, is pleased to have its name appear next to mine on the pages
of a magazine like Touchstone--so here I do it the service of issuing a
disclaimer on its behalf.
In another sense, however, I regard myself as a true son of that
institution. People like me, who manage
to squeak out of mainline academies, are, I often think, products and
representatives of the prayers and gifts of the faithful who gave to those
schools with the understanding that a considerably different gospel than moves
groups like the ELCA and its flagship seminary was being taught there. It is not, after all, your grandfather's
(well, at least your great-grandfather's) Lutheranism that is promulgated by
the typical seminary of that synod, but something far more, shall we say,
evolved.
Well, there comes a time when even
such tenuous ties must be severed, when any fraternal association with the ELCA
must be renounced. This month the
delegates to its biennial convention approved a resolution that urged all
denominational leaders not to discipline (as it has in the past, in accordance with church rules) sexually active homosexual clergy in
“faithful committed same-gender relationships.”
Of course, we are seeing a great
deal of effort on the part of ELCA officials, who obviously fear the effects of
this resolution on church life and funding, to nuance what this means. But a brief visit to the blogsites of
Lutheran homosexual activists makes it clear that they understand its
significance. Something immensely
important has happened; the floodgate is now in fact open. The ELCA joins a number of other mainline Protestant denominations as,
as one Catholic observer put it, just another Sodomite sect.
No doubt we will now begin to see, as
we did in former years among the Episcopalian traditionalists, the embarrassing spectacle of denial,
declarations that “I didn’t leave the ELCA, the ELCA left me,” profession of
loyalty to something that no longer exists, local resistance, and
splintering. People who anticipate a
large harvest for the Missouri Synod don’t understand the dynamics of American
Lutheranism. I can predict with fair
confidence, however, that the (fairly conservative) ELCA majority will continue
to slide deeper into the dotard’s sleep of nescience and morbid tolerance that
allowed this to happen in the first place, now and then mumbling something
unintelligible about the gospel, Lutheran tradition, and evangelical
catholicity. I hope I’m wrong, but
doubt it.
One small thing that will happen,
however, is that the name of the Lutheran School of Theology, that Urquell
of silliness and pretension, that notable sniffer of whatever airs blow from
the theological academy of hell, will no longer appear in my biographical
note. “Marty,” contrary to one of its
advertisements, would not be proud, and we all have our limits.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 10:59 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e3933b51978834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The ELCA: “Another Sodomite Sect”:
Comments
People who anticipate a large harvest for the Missouri Synod don’t understand the dynamics of American Lutheranism.
SMH,
I am not Lutheran and I certainly do not "understand the dynamics of American Lutheranism," so I must ask why wouldn't orthodox Lutherans in the ELCA bolt to the LCMS, WELS or other conservative Lutheran denomination? As you indicated as to yourself, "we all have our limits." One would hope that there are orthodox Lutherans in the ELCA who would find the problems they have with the LCMS and WELS less troublesome than what they must now surely have with the ELCA. I am asking this strictly as an outside observer who cannot understand why an orthodox Lutheran would stay in the ELCA when there are alternatives within his own tradition.
Posted by: GL | Aug 13, 2007 11:19:29 AM
I have to admit an interest too...
Posted by: Nick | Aug 13, 2007 11:28:54 AM
There are often very strong ties to fellow members of a local congregation which provide a pull whenever the slide into apostacy provides a push.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 13, 2007 11:55:40 AM
"One small thing that will happen, however, is that the name of the Lutheran School of Theology, that Urquell of silliness and pretension, that notable sniffer of whatever airs blow from the theological academy of hell, will no longer appear in my biographical note."
Good for you! Although the Lutheran School of Theology will continue to ask its alumni to contribute $$$ to the school. ;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 13, 2007 11:57:02 AM
I would agree. As a former Mo Synod member I have seen many members that had a visceral revulsion for the reigning officers but would not think of leaving. One big reason is worldly and has to do with benefits. Any minister (of the Word or teacher) that leaves the Synod also leaves their medical and retirement benefits. The other reason I see is that tendency of us humans to resist change. Another remark you will hear in ELCA is, "It's better to stay and fight rather than surrender to the evildoers". Mo Synod kids learn that saying from inside the womb onward.
Posted by: lcmslutheran | Aug 13, 2007 11:59:20 AM
There are often very strong ties to fellow members of a local congregation which provide a pull whenever the slide into apostacy provides a push.
As a former ELCA Lutheran (now Roman Catholic), I agree. My wife's family is ELCA and as conservative as anyone posting here, but they'll never leave. Too many friends and family to leave behind. We're buffered here in West Michigan by the conservative nature of the area, however.
Posted by: Occasus | Aug 13, 2007 12:03:42 PM
I await Brother Hutchens' answer to GL's and Nick's question. If he speaks further, I'd predict that he'll take off from ideas he expressed in the penultimate paragraph of his comments.
Much of what he forecasts to be the protestations of the conservatives within the ELCA are taken directly from the scripts of the conservatives within the Episcopal Church since Gene Robinson's consecration as bishop. The former should look to the latter as to how things will fare with them. The conservatives within the Episcopal Church were for some time an embarrassment to anyone who'd make a claim to being a son of the English Reformation. Now they're becoming an embarrassment to anyone who'd make a claim to being minimally Christian.
From watching the Anglican debacle from the inside for about 15 years now, here's how I'd answer the question with respect to conservatives within the Episcopal Church ...
Yes, we all have limits, but -- like boundaries -- limits have opposing sides. In other words, the conservative Episcopalian who identifies consecrating an active homosexual as bishop (one sort of limit) has just as powerful an aversion to what he'll call "fundamentalism" or "patriarchalism." He's cherry-picked himself a lovely bowl of Episcopal-appearing fruits and resents having to add to it (such as main-streaming homosexuality) or detracting from it (such as rejecting not only homosexuality but also sexual egalitarianism generally). As another Touchstone editor once remarked to me privately (I'm paraphrasing from memory), "Conservative Episcopals, for all their conservatism, are not actually orthodox."
I think it all boils down to an aversion to acknowledging that "I was wrong, decively and disasterously wrong," which keeps conservative Episcopals on the "official" Episcopal reservation. I expect it will turn out the same for "conservatives" within the ELCA.
Posted by: Fr. Bill | Aug 13, 2007 12:07:46 PM
My parents' church is conservative ELCA, and while I don't know all the factors that make them lean against the LCMS, here are a few:
- They have no problem with the ordination of women - or, at least, their general teaching authority in the church.
- They believe in open communion (to any baptized believer).
- The ELCA came from a merger of the ELC and ALC some decades ago (1970s?). It's not a huge stretch of some members' imaginations to go back to a separate denomination again, or join the "Free" Lutheran association.
Posted by: Yaknyeti | Aug 13, 2007 12:17:33 PM
Every time I read one of these threads, I hear the immortal chorus of one of AC/DCs more popular songs: We're on a hiiiighwaay to Hell...
:-)
I second Fr. Bill's observations about the Episcopal Church. They're lapping the nice ELCA Lutherans, though, in antiChristianity.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 13, 2007 12:29:27 PM
GL & Nick -
There are many reasons ELCA'ers might give for remaining... others have already noted family ties and loyalty to the local congregation.
Geography is another one... a large portion of Lutherans are still congregated in the small towns of the midwest, where there might not be an LCMS option for 25 miles (as is the case with my parent's church).
Also, unless you have an interest in church politics, it's relatively easy to believe that what happens in your (relatively conservative) local church is the norm, rather than the exception. And liberal pastors who value their positions will be cagey about how they approach the issue with their more conservative congregations.
Most, I would guess, however, are willing to stay in part because they believe it when the leadership says that this is "not a change in policy", and that the new guidlines are part of a "loving response" to homosexuals. I think it takes a nearly willful blindness to believe this, but such things happen when the alternative is to leave the congregation where you've been a member for 30 years...
It's really a smart strategy by the revisionists - don't be up front about anything that might upset the conservatives, shift & dissembulate, allow the revisionists to due what they wish in their more liberal synods. Eventually, the membership will age and the next generation, whose morals were influenced much more strongly by the culture than the church, will allow what has for years been de facto practice to finally become official teaching.
- Kevin
(disclosure: I am still officially on the membership of my parent's ELCA church, though we now worship at an LCMS church where we live. I've retained ELCA membership up to this point in order to exert some conservative influence on the board of the local Church Camp, on which I serve. My term is up this year though...)
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 13, 2007 12:33:40 PM
When the 'Seminex boys' left the LCMS (actually, most of them didn't, and appear to be very influential in the Concordias) in 1973 and thereabouts, and precipitated the union between the LCA and the ALC, conservative congregations left -then- and formed the AALC.
Those who stayed in might be traditional, they might have conservative moral motions, but they likely don't have such a strong belief in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture that they would want to join the LCMS, let alone ELS and WELS. I doubt that many would join the AALC. Some might join the Free Lutherans, most will stay in, frogs in the stewpot, a few might leave to form something new.
Fr. Bill, I found out that that is true. The truly orthodox Episcopalians left 30 years ago. The 'conservatives' of today do not accept Biblical authority in practice, even in the matter of homosexuality(!) woman's ordination, and other matters which are too conservative for their social groups (my diagnosis, it might be incorrect) I'm not saying that they aren't fellow believers, but they are sub-orthodox in many cases.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 13, 2007 12:36:44 PM
As a "Catholic observer" of such things, I would opine, somewhat along the lines of Yankyeti's observation, that perhaps the biggest single stumbling block to bolting the ELCA for the LC-MS (or even more conservative bodies such as the WELS or the ELS) is the widespread support for WO among even quite conservative members of the ELCA. This is quite a contrast with ECUSA, where those who hold most firmly to a traditional Anglo-Catholic view of Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church tend to be those most opposed to WO -- although the great "Achilles Heel" of ECUSA has been the almost total absence of "Conservative Evangelicals" of a Calvinistic mould who, in places where they either abound in Anglicanism (e.g., the Archdiocese of Sydney in Australia and 2 or 3 rural Australian Anglican dioceses) or at least form a recognized constituency (as in the Church of England), generally oppose WO with the same degree of fervor as do conservative Anglo-Catholics, although for totally different reasons. (In America, "Evangelical Episcopalians" tend to be generic wishy-washy "Evangelicals" with charismatic leanings and a taste for liturgy and sacraments, but with no firm views about Church Order and a tendency to favor WO -- just like the grand panjandrum and exemplary figure for so many of them, the late Robert Webber, once of Wheaton College.)
My experience of ELCA Lutherans (which is not inconsiderable) is that even the deeply conservative among them, whether "socially" conservative or "theologically" conservative, or both, have a deep and even aggressive devotion to WO. This can be seen particularly glaringly among the leaders and adherents of the "Evangelical Catholic" movement in the ELCA, such as Carl Braaten, Paul Hinlicky and Frank Senn, who for all of their purported "Catholicity" as regards liturgy, sacraments, church order and (sometimes) vaguely "Romish" aspirations, have always taken the line of "Rome is wrong and will have to recognize that it is wrong" as regards WO. I well remember, as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of this tendency, an article that Frank Senn (pastor of Immanuel ELCA church in Evanston, IL and a premier Lutheran liturgical scholar, as well as "Senior" of a society of Catholic-minded ELCA clergy, the "Society of the Holy Trinity") published in *Lutheran Forum* in 1994 in which he argued that as the ELCA was going to the dogs, increasingly tolerating theological liberalism and moral antinomianism, the "Evangelical Catholics" should take their own initiative to seek a "Lutheran-Rite Church" in communion with Rome. So far, so good, perhaps, but then he went on to declare that a sine qua non for such a goal would be Rome's recognition of "the validity of out Orders, including those of our women pastors" and her acceptance that women would continue to be ordained within such a "Lutheran-Rite" body, even if not in the Catholic church at large.
I remember the amazement with which I read it at the time, and at the powerful delusion under which a man of such intellectual and spiritual gifts must be laboring even to imagine that such a "recognition" could ever be forthcoming from Rome. It is the more remarkable, in that many of the same "Evangelical Catholics" in the ELCA also supported the 1997/1999 "concordat" between the ELCA and ECUSA in full awareness of the doctrinal latitudinarianism and moral degeneracy of the latter body, simply in the belief that the "Catholic Church Order" of ECUSA, if embraced by the ELCA, could somehow further ecumenical "progress" with Rome. Well, now we see, as St. Augustine once wrote about men of a similar cleverness, "Acceperunt mercedem suam vani vanam."
The Missouri Synod has real problems, among them being its bedrock congregationalism, and there are among them liberal organizations such as "Daystar" (which is pro-WO) and "Jesus First" (which promotes an almost-Baptistic idea of congregational autonomy linked with an individualistic pietism and an aversion to anything smacking of "Catholicism" and "sacerdotalism") which are the ecclesiological equivalent of cancer cells in its body; and the Missouri Synod's current leadership might well be characterized as in some respects "neither hot nor cold" -- but for all that it is a genuinely Christian body and one that strived to hold fast to what it has received from the Great Tradition, instead of treading it underfoot with ECUSA and now the ELCA, to the members of both of which bodies Gandalf's admonition, "Fly, you fools!," fully applies.
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 13, 2007 1:08:52 PM
>He's cherry-picked himself a lovely bowl of Episcopal-appearing fruits and resents having to add to it (such as main-streaming homosexuality) or detracting from it (such as rejecting not only homosexuality but also sexual egalitarianism generally).
>I would opine, somewhat along the lines of Yankyeti's observation, that perhaps the biggest single stumbling block to bolting the ELCA for the LC-MS (or even more conservative bodies such as the WELS or the ELS) is the widespread support for WO among even quite conservative members of the ELCA.
That's true for those in all denominations which ordain women. Be it PCUSA, UMC, TEC, etc. none have rational basis for resisting the homosexual push once they set aside God's ecclesiastical guidance. Which is why those "conservatives" really aren't all that conservative.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 13, 2007 1:15:35 PM
"The ELCA joins a number of other mainline Protestant denominations as, as one Catholic observer put it, just another Sodomite sect."
After all that has happened, it takes a lot of guts for a Catholic to condem other Christian denominations for sexual immorality. Wasn't there just a big settlement the Vatican had to pay because its priests can't keep their hands off little alter boys?
Posted by: Lex | Aug 13, 2007 2:15:06 PM
Well, Lex, last I heard the Vatican hasn't declared that paedophilia or homosexual activity is an indifferent, or potentially virtuous, practice, which is precisely what the ELCA has done, in an uinderhanded and devious manner. So if your posting has an intelligible point you have failed to make it.
Posted by: William Tighe | Aug 13, 2007 2:26:30 PM
"My experience of ELCA Lutherans (which is not inconsiderable) is that even the deeply conservative among them, whether "socially" conservative or "theologically" conservative, or both, have a deep and even aggressive devotion to WO."
Dr. Tighe is aware of how detrimental I think WO is the spiritual health of the church universal. That being said, I do acknowledge 2 WO church organizations that have been doing well, at least in terms of numbers: One, Assemblies of God, and two, the Willow Creek Churches.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 13, 2007 2:40:39 PM
>After all that has happened, it takes a lot of guts for a Catholic to condem other Christian denominations for sexual immorality.
The RCs haven't declared that sexual immorality is doctrinally acceptable. The ELCA has.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 13, 2007 2:43:47 PM
David -
In fact, the ELCA hasn't explicitly declared homosexual acts doctrinally acceptable... what the assembly did was to recommend that bishops refrain from disciplining pastors who break the rules.
Now in practice, I agree that this ammounts to the same thing, but some members of the assembly must think it doesn't, as they also voted down recomendations to actually change "the rules"...
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 13, 2007 2:51:40 PM
All of our denominations and sects have a human (i.e., fallen) tendency to look the other way and to give a pass for certain sinful behavior. Many of the mainline Protestant denominations have come to *formally* agree to look the other way when the sin is some sort of sexual immorality and some have gone so far as to even deny that some such acts are sins. Sadly, certain high officials in the Roman Catholic Church looked the other way at acts of sodomy by priest. In the evangelical Protestant churches, many have looked the other way at pornography, worldliness, and materialism run amok. We all have reasons to beat our chest and cry, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner" both in our personal lives and as to our own denominations.
The distinction, however, is that looking the away or even denying that certain types of sexual immorality are sins has become the *formal* policy of some denominations. They have not only abdicated their role as disciplinarians, they have become *formally* false teachers.
Posted by: GL | Aug 13, 2007 3:13:15 PM
"They have not only abdicated their role as disciplinarians, they have become *formally* false teachers."
In my personal observations, folks who are *enablers* refuse to acknowledge or accede that they are, in fact, enabling the wrongful behavior. They refuse any responsibility whatsoever as to their role in being complicit to the continuance of the destructive behavior. They would deny fervently that they are aiding and abetting the heresy and/or apostasy, or destructive behavior.
They would proclaim that your interpretation of their silence and tacit approval from that silence is extreme legalism and sinful judgmentalism on your part.
To proclaim that someone has abdicated has abdicated their role as loving disciplinarian and formally becoming a *false* teacher would constitute a grave offense to them, bordering on hate speech.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 13, 2007 3:22:40 PM
I agree with John Chrysostom (among others) that those who are chosen by God to serve His flock have a particularly, um, strenuous path to walk. I'm only a deacon but serving as such for the last six or so years has heightened my awareness of the dangers of sin and the idea that I could affect a lot of lives and the way some people see the religion of the Lord of the Entire Universe if I screw up. Some of these leaders of the church appear to me to take their burden way too lightly. They treat the Body of Christ like it's an institution of man. Heck, maybe that's not even right, as some among them don't even take it as seriously as most men do the source of their livelihood! They relativize this commandment and nullify that one like they are kids playing at tiddliwinks rather than men of God striving against the forces of sin and death. At the very least they seem to have lost any sense of the awful drama and majesty of the enterprise. Some of them need to have some sense slapped into their silly heads.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 13, 2007 4:07:01 PM
With my roots in the LCMS, I was very disappointed, but not surprised, to read of this latest development in the ELCA. Given their unequal yoking with the Episcopal Church, among other things, it was probably all but inevitable. This is another of those cases where I find myself quoting G.K. Chesterton:
"At least six times during the last few years, I have found myself in a situation in which I should certainly have become a Catholic, if I had not been restrained from that rash step by the fortunate accident that I was one already." (The Well and the Shallows)
Posted by: Darrel Hoerle | Aug 13, 2007 6:10:03 PM
I just covered the LCMS convention in Houston for Forum Letter and was struck particularly with the social statements that passed overwhelmingly. One prevents any LCMS affiliated organization from participating in foster-child placements or adoptions into homosexual contexts. Another merely asks ths synod to publicize its anti-Embryonic Stem Cell Research stance while making known its support for adult stem cell research. Quite a contrast to the ELCA, though I suspect it is true that Women's Ordination and literal six-day Creationism will prevent most conservative ELCA pastors from fleeing to the LCMS. But a lot of laymen will, especially after 2009. Just a prediction.
Posted by: peter speckhard | Aug 13, 2007 10:44:23 PM
Small correction to William Tighe's post above: The Society of the Holy Trinity is made up of clergy from ELCA, LCMS (I are one), and a few Canadian and Australian members.
Posted by: Fr Dave Poedel, STS | Aug 13, 2007 11:01:45 PM
One other consideration is that many of the ELCA's clergy won't have a problem with the decisions of the CWA. The statistic that I've heard from Skip Sunberg are that if the ELCA split into two denominations, 70% of the clergy would go with 30% of the congregations/members, this being the more liberal side of the church. So many of the congregations may not hear about this because of the leadership of the clergy, or if they do it will be spun into something positive. Just a thought.
Posted by: Jared Rakness | Aug 13, 2007 11:11:47 PM
"'Marty,' contrary to one of its advertisements, would not be proud, and we all have our limits."
Perhaps instead of Martin Luther, they meant Martin Marty? :-)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 13, 2007 11:25:13 PM
There is little I can add to Dr. Tighe's commentary. I have never been able to understand the phenomenon of ELCA Lutherans with what we might call orthodox sensibilities, and from whose lips the profession of evangelical catholicism is never far, who simply see no problems with women's ordination, who speak as though it were an insignificant matter that the rest of the church will soon enough come to its senses on, and which can be virtually ignored as an ecumenical problem. But then again, the logic and fundamental theological ratio of Lutheranism itself--after studying its dogmatics for years--remains opaque to me as well--unless it is explained in terms of a tribal ethos in which the characteristically Lutheran beliefs stand less for a reasoned exposition of biblical doctrine than a symbol of ethnic identity and solidarity.
I would be willing to take that idea and run with it at least a little way, since it helps to explain why so many non-LCMS Lutherans find the "Prussian" atmosphere of that Synod--or so I have heard it described more than once--so repellent that they would sooner become Catholics than join it.
That is the other factor I had in mind. A Lutheran is not simply a Lutheran, but a certain kind of Lutheran, with a family background, an ethnic heritage, and a way of thinking that goes with it. A great many of them that I know, when the LCMS is mentioned, have told me they can hear the click of jackboots and see the glint of spiked helmets advancing from many leagues off. They don't necessarily dislike the Missouri Synod because they're liberals. They dislike it because they find it humorless, overbearing, and full of strange habits and obsessions, however orthodox.
Will the LCMS gain members from this? Yes, some. But I doubt there will be a large harvest, for this reason and those that others have pointed out.
Posted by: smh | Aug 13, 2007 11:28:37 PM
William Tighe, you appear more up on what is happening in Missouri than I. Thank you for the post. I didn't realize that Jesus First was so low church. I thought that their main point was rejecting the crypto-Calvinist "confessionalist'istist views about not loving or acknowledging other Christians.
SMH, LC-MS is Saxon, not Prussian in its origin, and these Old Lutherans fled to America to escape persecution at the hands of Bismark and his Prussians. And the Nazi characterization you provided is so very far from the present reality. The Germanness is now limited to a yearly polka mass and brats mit kraut for a church luncheon.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 13, 2007 11:53:59 PM
"Marty would be proud" was emblazoned on a Lutheran School of Theology tee-shirt that was being worn around the school some years ago. The image and likeness that accompanied it looked a lot more like Dr. Luther than Dr. Marty.
Thinking of what Luther would think of the ELCA--or Calvin of the PCUSA, or Wesley of the United Methodists, or Edwards or Nevin of the United Church of Christ, is not something one should do when in a bad mood.
Posted by: smh | Aug 13, 2007 11:55:00 PM
Labrilumn, I am only repeating what was told me--by Lutherans who did not seem to appreciate the difference. And I am not speaking of the kind of simple ethnicity surviving in Wurst und Kraut dinners, but something deeper, that floats upon the blood.
I will hasten to add that I by no means endorse this estimation of the LCMS. I am only saying that it is out there, does not seem uncommon, and that the horrible pastiche I put up is a combination of commentary given me by relatively conservative members of the ELCA of Swedish, Danish, and Finnish backgrounds back in the days when J.A.O. Preus was the president of the Synod. Certainly my correspondent with the Augustana background was playing on the name.
Posted by: smh | Aug 14, 2007 12:03:02 AM
The Teutonic quality of the Missouri Synod is fast fleeting except for enclaves in the Midwest. Yet, the reputation endures.
(Admittedly, the "Germanness" of the LCMS endures pretty markedly in our pastors and their tendency to harsh rhetoric, "stiffness," and reserve, compared to the clergy of many other churches.)
Yet, the Missouri Synod is in many ways very tightknit and thus somewhat impenetrable to "newbies." It seems that our rather extensive parochial school system from preschool to college fosters this.
Posted by: Chris Jackson | Aug 14, 2007 9:42:48 AM
One thing that must be taken into account when dealing with the various flavors of Lutheranism is ethnic identity that is connected with the different bodies. The LCMS is largely German in its make-up historically, and the ELCA draws more from the Scandanavian branch of the family tree. In many ways, it is the equivalent of a family squabble, with the ELCA members bemused by the perceived backwardness and isolationistic tendencies of the LCMS, and the Missourians fretting about how the ELCAers have strayed from confessional Lutheranism. Both I believe long for the day when the other will see the error of their ways and return to what it means to be Lutheran.
As the product of a "mixed marriage" (Swedish Augustana/ALC/ELCA mom, German LCMS dad) I've seen this from both sides. I grew up ALC/ELCA (largely because my local church(es) was good), but now attend an LCMS church in the DC area. My conservative ELCA relatives still have pre-conceived notions about the LCMS, but I've found that when they actually attend a Missouri church, they are pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Steve Rempe | Aug 14, 2007 9:51:48 AM
Dr. Tighe and SMH,
Thanks for those answers. It is sad that so many generations on, these latent ancestral "tribal" attachments or so strong that one would prefer swallowing hard at gross apostasy so as to remain in one's "ancestral" denomination to swallowing hard and accepting what is perceived as overly legalistic dogmas to be in an otherwise orthodox denomination in one's own tradition. Unfortunately, however, it makes perfect sense to me. I suppose forming a congregation which is a part of the "'Free' Lutheran association" means giving up considerable assets as do many orthodox Anglicans who leave the ECUSA and that such existing congregation are even less available as alternatives to many than LCMS congregations. (When I left the SBC and became Presbyterian, I seriously considered Lutheranism, but considered the LCMS the only viable alternative in my area and was dissuaded, in part, by their position on worship and prayer fellowship with non-Lutheran Christians.)
Next question: Why have mainline Protestant denominations been so much more susceptible to the feminist and, now, the homosexual societal drift than evangelical denominations? Is it that these denomination have historically be populated by those of higher social, economic and educational status and that this status makes them more tolerant of these particular deviations for traditional Christianity or is it something about their earlier doctrines that made them more amenable to such trends? (Believe me, I know from sad experience that evangelicals are susceptible to our own forms of surrender to the secular society of which we are a part, particularly worldliness and materialism. We can perhaps address the issue of why that is the case on a later thread.)
Posted by: GL | Aug 14, 2007 9:56:10 AM
In answer to GL's question about susceptibility, perhaps it's in part a matter of how long it takes for apostasy to germinate and 'flower' in Protestantism. The mainline Protestant denominations have had a head start of a few centuries on most so-called evangelical churches.
Plus, the fact that evangelical churches are mostly congregational in ecclesiology means that apostasy plays out differently than in more centralized denominations. When an individual non-denominational Bible church goes apostate, who notices?
Posted by: kate | Aug 14, 2007 1:12:49 PM
Okay, I speak as a woman pastor, in the ELCA, okay? Figure I might as well be up front. I'm also a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity,as a former board member of Solid Rock Lutherans, which worked in 2005 to defeat the various same-sex blessing proposals, AND I am a subscriber to Touchstone.
First: whether or not you oppose the ordination of women, please be advised that there are some of us who strive - with fear and trembling - to preach the Gospel in its purity and to administer the Sacraments in accordance with that Gospel. And yes we know that we are accountable to Almighty God for this ministry to which we believe we have been called by that same God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are not all Baal-worshipping feminist deconstructionists, okay? :-)
(And no I'm not going to be drawn further into a discussion on this right now....)
Second: As to why the congregation I serve (as associate pastor) does not presently leave the ELCA; or, more personally, as to why either I or the senior pastor (also a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity) does not leave, I can offer a couple of insights.
First, we believe that we have been called and ordained to serve in the Church and, in our present calls, to a particular congregation. It does not seem that God has yet called up to LEAVE our ministry in this place. And, however dreadfully things may be going in the ELCA, we are still called to serve these people in this place, and it would be a lot like a shepherd abandoning his flock were we, as clergy, to up and run. What wolves might circle, masquerading as shepherds?
So why not bring the entire congregation with us? In part, yes, there are familial and sociological issues that would complicate things for some members, although it's unclear as to how many. Although we have a lot of "first families" represented, there are a lot of newer folks who don't have those familial and intergenerational ties to one congregation or denomination.
But, more critically, because we don't see ourselves as congregational - since we actually do take seriously the notion that we are part of the whole Body of Christ, however imperfectly we do that - we look to the possibility not of simply leaving, but of joining with another larger part of that Body. There are a bunch of what someone called Lutheran Micro-synods (sort of like microbreweries, I guess!) but they really do seem awfully "Sect-like," even to us. There are several options, and a few more may evolve in the next couple of years. We can only "jump" once; we would like to try, with prayerful intercession to the Holy Spirit for guidance, to do the best that is open to us. And we simply don't see that quite yet.
Nevertheless, the time is almost certainly coming. And if I retire, or am called away from this congregation before that happens, I will almost certainly resign from the clergy roster and convert to Orthodoxy. And yes,, yes, yes, I am fully aware of their opposition to women priests. I would gladly live under obedience to that, among many other things that I may not fully understand or agree with personally, for the sake of the "one thing needful."
Posted by: Cathy Ammlung | Aug 14, 2007 2:24:59 PM
Cathy,
You say:
"It does not seem that God has yet called up to LEAVE our ministry in this place."
I would be curious as to whether you have any thing in particular that would be an indication to you that God has done this. If so, can you put these "signs", if you will, into words and principals? I ask because it appears to me you are simply saying "you don't know", as to what specifically is your Dogmatic Minimum, if I may put it that way. Clearly, you have a minimum - as I can safely say that you would not say God calls you to "serve" your parish if it decided to follow the Dali Lama. No doubt this is a difficult time for you, but I wonder what your minimum is.
Posted by: Christopher | Aug 14, 2007 3:55:56 PM
"Leave"? Cathy, you make it sound as if you're trying to avoid the rudeness of being the first to exit a garden party. As William Tighe said above, quoting Gandalf the Great: "Fly, you fools!"
Abraham had to be called out of Ur; Moses left his Egyptian heritage; the old covenant Jews really did have to abandon virtually all that they knew as Judaism when the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in Jerusalem. Those who insist on a Christianity that is comfortable will find themselves cut off: a branch left to wither and die.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 14, 2007 5:14:01 PM
Bill R., I think you're too hard on Cathy.
Reading her comment, I don't suppose she's finding the going very comfortable right now, and I imagine she's familiar with the various leave-takings you mention.
I do not even favor WO, but given that she is where she is, perhaps it would be generous to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is truly seeking God's will in her ministry, rather than implying that by staying she is choosing comfort over obedience.
Posted by: kate | Aug 14, 2007 7:19:10 PM
Kate,
I agree that she is in a difficult position. That being said, I see Bill R's point to. It is not like Cathy has not seen this coming. We all have. Any Touchstone subscriber is aware of the "decline of the mainline". They essentially are heading toward Unitarian Universalism, and it's simply a matter of time before they are indistinguishable from it (I predict 50 to 75 years before the process is complete). Cathy has seen this coming, and in her own way resisted it. I suppose at some point she has to decide. I am wondering what her "minimum" is, the "switch" that would be her (and her families) limit. This may have changed through time, but surely she has thought about it...
Posted by: Christopher | Aug 14, 2007 7:49:23 PM
"First: whether or not you oppose the ordination of women, please be advised that there are some of us who strive - with fear and trembling - to preach the Gospel in its purity and to administer the Sacraments in accordance with that Gospel."
Alas, however good your intentions, if you truly so strove, you would not support women's ordination, much less be one such supposedly "ordained" woman. And that is the point -- good intentions are not enough; what is required is obedience.
"It does not seem that God has yet called up to LEAVE our ministry in this place."
And, alas again, this statement explains the problem in the previous statements. The whole problem begins with thinking in terms of "OUR" -- that is, "MY" ministry, instead of God's ministry and the Church's ministry. It implicitly and wrongly presumes that:
1) the only worthwhile ministry is ordained ministry (i.e., ministry is about exercising power and having authority and recognition, rather than servcie and obedience), and
2) that discernment of a call to any ministry, particularly the ordained ministry, begins with self rather than the Church -- which means setting one's own judgment against and above the judgment of the Church as the supposedly true oracle of God and right interpreter of Scripture.
At bottom, the "ordination" of women is as much a sin of rebellion as Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit. And C. S. Lewis in "Perelandra" covers all the subtle rationales for justifying both.
Also, a proper ministry is in God's Church. Christ promised that His Church would be indefectable -- but that promise does not extend to each and every visible ecclesial body that claims to manifest it (the fallacy of division). And when any such body clearly turns against God's word in brazen disobedience, then (as my friend Bill R. has noted) there is a moral obligation to leave that body forthwith. There is a difference between sin that occurs through weakness and that which occurs through knowing, deliberate, and willful use of strength in rebellion. And the latter is now fully and formally manifest in the ELCA, as it has been for some time in TEC, the UCC, and similar apostate bodies.
"And if I retire, or am called away from this congregation before that happens, I will almost certainly resign from the clergy roster and convert to Orthodoxy. And yes, yes, yes, I am fully aware of their opposition to women priests. I would gladly live under obedience to that, among many other things that I may not fully understand or agree with personally, for the sake of the 'one thing needful.'"
Then there is no ground or rationale to not "live under" and accept and embrace that obedience now. Since when did submission to obedience become a choice or preference or convenience of our own time and place? The formula is "faith seeking understanding", not the corrosive modern theolgoical revisionism of "understanding seeking faith".
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 14, 2007 8:20:51 PM
Apparently Mr. Altena's rules for civility at MC do not apply to him.
Posted by: JRM | Aug 14, 2007 9:28:48 PM
Dear Cathy,
I'd like to proffer for your prayerful consideration the example of Alice Linsley, a formerly ordained priestess in The Episcopal Church. She renounced her orders and converted to Othodoxy. She is a living example of someone that traveled the path that you're considering.
Here's an interview with her: http://www2.arkansasonline.com/blogs/bible-blog/2007/mar/03/canterbury-constanti/
Here's Alice's blog: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/
Peace and Blessings Cathy,
Your Partner for His Truth and Love
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Aug 14, 2007 10:11:11 PM
As a proselyte to the LCMS from evangelicalism, I wouldn't so much say it's German-ness and jackboots. Maybe folks from the ELCA see it that way because we actually expect our pastors to believe a dogma or two instead of just wear nice vestments. I do see weirdness that comes from the cultural and ecclesiastical isolation, however.
Posted by: Josh S | Aug 14, 2007 11:00:08 PM
Since when did submission to obedience become a choice or preference or convenience of our own time and place?
As someone who was received into the Orthodox church, I am conscious that for many "converts" into Orthodoxy (or other Christian communions), we exercise personal choice in these matters to a degree that was unheard of just a few generations back. We don't assume that we live and die as adherents of the church (or religion generally) into which we were born. Even when we become Orthodox (or Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic), we visit parishes all over town to find the right "fit." So yes, I am in obedience to my tradition and its local expression, but many faithful Christian are not. Ditto for any Roman Catholic posting here, or [fill in the blanks].
Posted by: Juli | Aug 14, 2007 11:01:44 PM
"Apparently Mr. Altena's rules for civility at MC do not apply to him." - JRM
No, rather the rules for civility must by necessity give way to the law of charity, that is, the cure of souls.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 15, 2007 12:32:34 AM
>No, rather the rules for civility must by necessity give way to the law of charity, that is, the cure of souls.
Spot on.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 15, 2007 4:55:47 AM
I see nothing uncivil in Mr. Altena's comments and I agree with him in general.
Having said that, however, I do think Kate is correct in giving Cathy the benefit of the doubt, I myself having been in a similar position before I became Orthodox. I was firmly convinced of the truth of the Orthodox faith, and was ready to be chrismated, but there were family and personal issues at the time that delayed my entrance for almost a year. I ceased attending the Episcopal parish I had been a member of, and was attending Orthodox liturgy regularly, but could not take communion in either body, thus going without the sacrament for well over a year.
Perhaps Cathy is in a similar position. If so, that should be taken into consideration, and her delay not put down to simple sloth or disobedience.
Posted by: Rob Grano | Aug 15, 2007 6:55:21 AM
I'm with Bill R., James A. and David Gray on this one. And I would further add that I saw nothing uncivil in what James wrote. His comments were forceful, but polite. And Bill R. was not too hard.
We live in very disturbing times, times in which apostasy is spreading like gangrene within many Christian denominations and in which worldliness, materialism and shallowness infect many which are not apostate. Certainly none of us belong to denominations or communions which are perfect. Yet, all of us must decide where we will draw lines and when old, tender attachments must give way to our superior duty of obedience. We should all remember in our prayers those orthodox Christians who find themselves in denominations that have apostatized so that they hear His voice (not ours) about what they should do. Were my family members of an ELCA congregation as of today, we would begin our search for a congregation in another denomination immediately.
Posted by: GL | Aug 15, 2007 7:04:42 AM
I remember the amazement with which I read it at the time, and at the powerful delusion under which a man of such intellectual and spiritual gifts must be laboring even to imagine that such a "recognition" could ever be forthcoming from Rome.
Sometimes I think that the purpose of most theology is to give high-minded explanations and rationales for powerful delusions.
Posted by: Josh S | Aug 15, 2007 8:03:55 AM
I am well-acquainted with a woman "priest" who left TEC, and am also a personal coach who guides people through sometimes harrowing career changes.
It is not something outsiders to Cathy's situation can evaluate, but there are two very different ways she may be tackling this:
1. "They're off course but I'm all right Jack. I preach orthodox doctrine, at least in many points. Later. It's not convenient and I might be letting someone down. Not to mention the pension."
2. "It is clear this denomination is veering toward the dark side, and I am convinced that Orthodoxy offers the true Church. I will seek to participate as possible in Orthodox worship. I will look immediately, if not publicly, toward other ways and places of making a living. I will find assistance in this, and move as soon as possible."
The position of clergy is different from that of a member of a parish. My own friend had a family business to move into, so the making-a-living issue was fortunately not a cause of delay. But the rest of us weighing-in need to consider what we would do if the decision would destroy a career path. Although we might hope we would take a leap of faith into the lilies of the field, would we? All I could say to Cathy, is that it may be best to keep one's head down and proceed, rather than engage in cheery explanation for delay, if one is called to jump a sinking ship.
If not, I'm with those who seriously wonder why. Nothing has gotten better with delay in The Poster Child for all this. If the pension or the familiar context is the deciding factor that is delaying a beginning, may I remind myself among others that none of us has unlimited time to build bigger barns.
Posted by: dilys | Aug 15, 2007 8:54:14 AM
