Building a "Bridge" to Where?

Pastoral Musings on the Recent ELCA Churchwide Assembly Vote for Full Communion with the Episcopal Church

Edward Trexler, editor of The Lutheran magazine, titled his editorial page in the October, 1999 edition: "Poised for the millennium: Episcopal full communion makes ELCA premier bridge-builder."  Hence my title question... where is this bridge taking us?  And why are we going?  I thought we were "there" already!

The vote approving full communion was 716-317, 26 whole votes more than the two-thirds majority required for entering into ecumenical agreements with other churches (a total of 69.3%).  This means that, given the intense lobbying inflicted on the delegates by the pro-agreement camp, 35-45 % of ELCA churches really don't want to be a part of this agreement, and, apparently, many of these REALLY don't want to be a part of it.  Quoting "one bishop" in his editorial, congregations "double-digit in number” are talking with that bishop about withholding funds or withdrawing from the ELCA.  In addition, ELCA Presiding Bishop Anderson is planning meetings with three Minnesota synods that apparently are sources of much of the dissention on this issue.  Could it be that it's because this is where our largest seminary is?  And maybe because Lutheranism tends to run deeper up there?  And there are more Lutherans in that part of the country than there is snow (speaking pound-for-pound, of course)?

This is the kind of thing I have been concerned about.  In the head-long rush to worship the "false god" of ecumenical oneness (a bit harsh, I know), the ELCA has arrogantly excluded significant numbers of its pastors and churches by taking a "bridge" that goes over the rainbow to a land in which significant
portions of our theology and ecclesiology are no longer welcome or needed.  They should not be surprised when there are consequences for this kind of poor leadership.

So, why is this so important to our leaders?  Reading between the lines of some carefully selected quotes in articles from The Lutheran, it almost seems that these church politicians want to make their mark on Lutheran (and other) church history ("Poised for the Millennium," "Bequeathing full communion" in
2000, and even the title for the assembly: "Hope for a New Century”).  Always, always, always beware of a politician (religious or secular) who wants to make his/her mark on history.  They have taken their eye off the appropriate target, and compromises are about to be made to accomplish their history-making
goals.  The lost target, in this case, is the Gospel and its mission calling us to bring the love of God in Christ to the world.  Ecumenical oneness at this kind of corporate level is, in my opinion, a sham, a deliberate misreading of John 17:11, and an utter waste of resources and energy that could be used to
bring the gospel to the world.

In my last parish in Grand Island, Nebraska, one of my best friends in ministry was an Episcopal priest.  We met through our community ministerial association, and began working together on ways to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and witness to the community through our churches.  Had we spent much of our time and energy trying to figure out how we could join our churches together, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.  We found our "oneness" in mission, not in church politics or structure.  Our shared understanding of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit were all the oneness we needed to provide leadership in the ministry of the Body of Christ in that community.  The witness to the community and to other churches was that, despite our differences and structure, we were able to work together with oneness of purpose and goal quite effectively - THAT, I believe, is the oneness that Jesus was talking about in his High Priestly Prayer in John 17, not this other stuff.

But the twenty-six needed votes were cast, and when the Episcopal Church votes it in sometime next year, the proposal will become a reality.  What will it mean?  The most offensive (to some of us) clause is regarding the "historic episcopacy," the doctrine that holds as absolutely necessary the fallacy that all pastors can/must be ordained by a Lutheran bishop AND an Episcopalian bishop whose ordination can be traced back in an unbroken line (there's the fallacy) to the apostles themselves.  It is objectionable not only because there is significant evidence that the line IS broken, not only because it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to the church, and not only because it seems to empower the bishops even more than they already were, but because it treads harshly on a foundational Lutheran doctrine: it puts human convention over the power of the Gospel.

It is, in the opinion of many in violation of Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession, one of the founding documents of the Lutheran Church.  Luther rightly called such things as the historic episcopate "adiaphora,” a Latin term meaning inconsequential or unimportant.  To lift such things to this high a level of importance, even in the name of oneness, making it a REQUIREMENT FOR MINISTRY, is to alter the foundations of our church. 

As I noted in my July, 99 Caller article, "If the validity of our ministry hinges on whether a pastor was touched by someone, who was touched by someone, who was touched by someone... all the way back to the apostles, then we have a real disagreement about what church is all about, and it shifts the focus of and basis for the church AWAY FROM the Scriptures and our Lutheran Confessions, and ON TO structural issues within the church.  Incredible amounts of money and energy are being expended over this stuff! What a shame!  It is no wonder that the church has trouble using Scripture as the basis for its decisions on sexuality and other issues."  If our preaching, churches and ministry AS THEY ARE now are unacceptable to the Episcopal church, then perhaps this is all a bad idea.

The sad thing is that, in the name of unity with other Christians, because of poor leadership and a skewed agenda, a significant level of disunity has resulted in our own denomination.  Don't people get it?  The very reason for the existence of the church is the spreading of the gospel.  And, believe it or not, the blessing of having different denominations is that in our human fallibility we have the freedom to disagree without having to battle it out every time someone gets in a snit about something.

How does this affect us? Where does this "bridge" lead?  Well, it doesn't seem to affect us in any significant way for now.  As a matter of principle I won't be taking part in any historic episcopacy ritual, but that doesn't seem to be required for current pastors (we'll be tolerated because otherwise the vote would not have succeeded) - only those who are ordained after the agreements are all signed.  We won't be using the Episcopalian liturgy here, either.  However, in the future, your next pastor may be an Episcopalian priest, and the decisions made by the Episcopal Church may be binding in some way on us.  A lot of this isn't clear yet.  We'll watch and see, and keep our focus on Christ.

Pastor Larry Becker
Sr. Pastor,
Trinity Lutheran Church
Hawthorne, CA