With feet planted squarely in the sixteenth century, octogenarian and retired theologian Carl Braaten has assumed the intellectual mantle as defender of Lutheran orthodoxy. On behalf of Lutheran Core (fellow travelers of the WordAlone network), he penned an open letter to delegates to the recent ELCA 2009 convention; later, he engaged in an ongoing debate with former Presiding Bishop Herb Chilstrom.
Presently, Braaten argues that ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson is wrong, our ELCA unity is not in Christ, as Hanson suggests, but in our Reformation era confessions. Braaten longs for the good old days of the Augsburg Confession (1530), but then he muses that even the Reformation was too radical: “When the first Lutherans lost the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church, it had no sure authority to put in its place.” Too much democracy, that’s the problem. Too much enlightened thinking. Too much reason and rationality. Ah, if the Lutherans only had an authoritative, top down Magisterium like the Catholics, this slippery slope modernism would be held in check. Why, just look at who the ELCA’s ecumenical friends are these days! The Episcopalians, the UCC, the RCA, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists. Mainline Protestants all.
The Lutheran Core website claims that the ELCA convention’s approval of gay clergy and gay marriage has resulted in strained ecumenical relationships. With whom? Not with these mainline protestant ecumenical partners, but with the Roman Catholics and Missouri Synod Lutherans. A sharp turn to the right is in order, according to Braaten and the Lutheran Core reactionaries.
With tongue firmly in his cheek, Lutheran Pastor Erik Samuelson responds to Braaten:
Dr. Braaten-
Thank you for your comments. I have always held you to be one of the great doctors of the Church. Though I have never met you, through your writings[, you] are one of my teachers. I was hoping I would run into you at the Churchwide Assembly, where I was a voting member, so you could answer a question that came up for me while watching the lecture video LutheranCORE distributed.
In the video, you refer to Jesus’ teaching that remarriage after divorce is adultery as “one of the great absolutes of Jesus”. You even mentioned your own children who had been divorced (though didn’t mention that you have, as I assume you have, advised them to remain celibate so as not to enter into adulterous remarriage relationships).
My question is, how can the ELCA allow remarried pastors (unrepentant adulterers) and bless second “marriages”? Both of these actions and the underlying teachings put us out of line with the historical teaching (and 2000 year consensus on human sexuality) of the Christian Church and threaten our ecumenical relationships with both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches? Why have we tolerated this open sin for so long in the ELCA? Might this be the next campaign for us to embark on? Perhaps LutheranCORE can tackle this next? This certainly affects more congregations and pastors than the homosexuality discussions have. Have you written anything on this that might help in our efforts?
Paul Sundberg, another commenter adds, “and what about those pesky women?”
Forward or back, whither shall we go?
I know I am not alone among Carl’s former students to be a bit mystified by his dramatic turn towards tradition and orthodoxy. When I was in seminary in the early 80s the radicalism of his universalism was still raising eye brows. Now, however, I think you are not far off in seeing his stance as a call to return to the 16th century. He has succumbed to a common tendency in the church to idealize its past.
And while I disagree with him completely in that nostalgia, I do wonder if he isn’t being more perceptive or more honest in seeing where the ELCA is heading. It is heading down the road, as Braaten calls it, of liberal Protestantism. I don’t think that is a bad thing. Nor do I think it is a failed movement of the past, as he judges it, but rather one that is still very much ongoing. It does lead to a diminshing of the church as an institution, which I think is part of what Braaten and others are reacting to, but which many in the ELCA (and other denominations) don’t see or don’t want to see.
While it became it elsewhere, initially the Reformation in Germany was not a democratic movement. Luther actively opposed the “radical” reformers and, I believe, stunted Germany’s democraticization for 400 years until the Nazi catastrophe. Luther did let the cat out of the bag, however, and an egalitarian Christianity has continued to grow ever since. The result is that the traditional leadership structures rarely initiate movements for justice or realization of the Christian ethic. Rather, they almost always come from below or even from outside the church altogether.
So I think Braaten is right that the church is often getting its agenda from the world. That world, however, is one that has in many ways adopted the values of equality and justice inherent in the gospel and the Christian movement. And this, of course, is why so many see the church as irrelevant or even a hindrance to movements for democracy and social progress that make the world a better place. To me this is entirely in keeping with Jesus’ own anti-institutional impulse and his teaching that God’s kindgom is much more like salt and leaven than the main course.
Braaten is convinced a strong authoritative church, loyal to its past, is necessary to preserve the gospel. Not only do I think Jesus would disagree, I think he would see the institutional church as having become one of its greatest obstacles. In fact, I think he would say the gospel jumped the church’s boundaries quite some time ago.
Doug: I disagree with your analysis. For example, the traditional leadership structure within the Catholic Church strongly supported the Solidarity movement in Poland, Pope John Paul II’s homeland. The support of the Roman Catholic Church was probably the single largest factor leading to a peaceful transition away from the Cold War. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have both been strong opponents of the Iraqi massacre since the beginning, even when the war was supported by the majority of Democrats. The RC Church has been a strong opponent of capital punishment, and other “liberal” causes.
Pope Benedict just published an encyclical, “Charity in Truth” adovocating for strong systems of social justice on almost every level. He noted that one of the great contributions that the Church can make to society is by showing charity in its furtherance of the truth, and, conversely, by showing truth in its furtherance of charity. He also reminded us that the Church does not exist to solve social problems; only government systems have the competence to do so. He reminds us that what often passes for “love” today is merely an undifferentiated emotionalism that is afraid to pass judgment on any truth.
I think Braaten is lamenting the loss of magisterial authority because of the loss of the emphasis on truth. When decisions, such as the value of human sexuality are put to a vote, people start to confuse democracy and the truth.
Democracy and social justice are not the Church’s direct concerns; her counterparts are truth and charity. It appears that many American churches are afraid to speak candidly on difficult topics for fear of offending its members and appearing cold and unloving. For example, the ELCA’s Social Statement on Sexuality hardly talks of the procreative function of sexual relations, the sacredness of life thereby produced, and the need to have families to benefit and support the children. Is sexual relations so controversial that the ELCA can no longer speak of God’s (nature’s) plan for mankind involving sex between a man and a woman? Does man really have a better plan?
I recently had a number of my friends, who happend to be ECLA, over for dinner. My reaction is that they are yearning for a Church with some magisterial authority who can help form their consciences on various social issues. They are open-minded folks who accept homosexuality orientation as a reality, but are generally concerned that the lack of clarity how to handle orientation can lead to confusion about what is right and wrong. One person commented that her child celebrated the vote as if it were a victory. I think that her concern was that her daughter and others would see the vote as an openness to sexuality that reduces the sacredness of sexuality from a gift of God to a right of man.
I know that people have left the Roman Catholic Church because they don’t like some of her teachings. But, it is both unfair and inaccurate to suggest that the RC Church does not welcome everyone, including homosexuals. Teaching that homosexual actions are intrinsically disordered is a natural law reality, not a judgment on the person. The fact that many use that teaching to teach that hating gays is OK does not mean that the teaching needs to be changed; it means that the hater must change.
I’m curious about the phrase “octogenarian and retired theologian Carl Braaten” and how you would like me to infer it. Should it just be treated as some random information about Dr. Braaten, or should I just consider what he writes to be “taken with a grain of salt” since he is over 80 and lives off his investments and pension?