|
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
|