On March 10th, I reported on the actions of the ELCA Conference of Bishops to welcome to ministry those pastors on the Extraordinary Lutheran Ministry (ELM) Roster. In my blog, I wondered about the use of the word “ordination” or its lack in the rite proposed by bishops. I also updated my post immediately with word that Lutherans Concerned North America (LCNA) quickly and enthusiastically endorsed the action of the Conference of Bishops. Since then, ELM has similarly offered its heartfelt gratitude toward the bishops.
Members of ELM were present as observers during the Conference deliberations. At one point, Bishop Stephen Marsh offered a motion which passed to allow one of the ELM persons present to have the privilege of “voice”, i.e. an invitation to address the assembled bishops. On today’s ELM blog, the remarks offered by ELM member Erik Christensen are published, and I reprint them here in their entirety.
Remarks made by Rev. Erik Christensen to the ELCA Conference of Bishops
Last weekend at the ELCA Conference of Bishops, Bp. Stephen Marsh (Southeast, MI) made a motion to give voice to a representative from ELM. With just a few minutes to prepare, Rev. Erik Christensen offered this response:
Good afternoon, my name is Erik Christensen. I’m a pastor here in Chicago at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church of Logan Square. I did my candidacy in the Southeastern Iowa Synod. I’m a son of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Des Moines, Iowa. And I did my seminary training both at Candler School of Theology at Emory, but also at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. I interned on the Jersey Shore at Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Toms River.
I want to say it’s really wonderful to be asked to speak. I really thank you for recognizing the privilege that it is to be allowed to speak to all of you and I thank you for extending that privilege. And I just want to say what you all know is true, but if I say it, it makes it a little less true for me in the moment…this is scary (laughter). So I just needed to say that so I could have permission to shake a little bit in my shoes.
I’ve often been afraid of what bishops think about the work that we do in ELM. And often I’ve been afraid because the way that our relationship has worked out historically has not been so good. But I really enjoy being in the room for the conversation right now because it builds my trust in the shared commitment to the Gospel that all of us have. And I can hear the sensitive, and the probing, and the discerning questions that are being asked, and it builds my trust in the church that we are becoming together.
A lot has been said, a lot has been written about the authority by which ELM has understood its ordinations to take place. So I actually don’t want to say too much about that at this particular moment, because I’m hearing a lot of that language filtering into your conversation. It’s really clear that this room of brothers and sisters has a really strong grasp on the myriad precedents, and that precedent alone isn’t really what we’re discussing here. And so I’ll be happy to entertain any questions, and others would as well, about that question of authority and by what authority we did those ordinations. But I think most of those points have been raised by you in these conversations already.
The contribution I want to make at this point in the conversation is to this question, “Why ordination?” Or why not ordination? How important is that word, really?
I want to lift up an image of my year at the Lutheran School in Philadelphia. I entered candidacy in Southeastern Iowa Synod, I made it through approval, I made it through endorsement, I made it through internship. I completed my M.Div and was in my Lutheran year in Philly and halfway through my Lutheran year, I was removed from ELCA candidacy by the candidacy committee in Southeastern Iowa Synod. And they attached a statement to their decision saying, “the only reason we have for denying approval for ministry is this policy that the church currently holds, and should that policy be removed, we would enthusiastically endorse this person.”
And there it was, I was denied, and I was no longer a candidate. And I was trying to make a decision about whether or not the ELM process had integrity, whether or not it was something I could offer my vocation up to, and put my faith in. So I went to my favorite professor and someone who is still a mentor in his writing and his speaking, Gordon Lathrop, and I said, “I’m trying to understand, Dr. Lathrop, whether or not I should offer myself to this process. Could I really understand an ordination that takes place without the full endorsement of the denomination as a full ordination?”
And he said, “No. That would be a broken ordination.” And I was confused.
And then I said, “Well, Dr. Lathrop, what about your ordination?”
And he said, “No, mine is broken as well. My ordination is also broken by the status of the body that we have right now and all of our ordinations won’t be completed until this reconciliation takes place.”
And so, I welcome the laying on of hands. I welcome the blessing with oil and with prayer and with every other form of public blessing that this church has to offer and I don’t think that “ordination” is the right word for that. Because I’ve been ordained. And you’ve been ordained. And our ordinations have been broken. And the healing and the reconciliation that needs to take place right now is contextual.
And I’m not ignorant to the fact that ordination is a word…it’s so nice to hear that there are these four different words, there are plenty of other words and they are not understood the same way at all moments in the life of the church and the history of the church. And so in one sense, “don’t get too hung up on it.” It’s ordination, it’s not ordination. But at this moment in the church, and in this does have meaning, now, for us. context, it’s a word that does have importance. It’s a word that
And so, if the purpose of the rite that you are trying to craft, if the purpose of this moment is to announce reconciliation and healing, then it will be important what word you choose. Not because that word always means that thing and always has meant that thing, but because you want that word to do something right now. And if you want it to do that thing, if you want the word, if you want the rite to do that thing that is healing and reconciliation in the body, that heals my broken ordination and your broken ordination, then affirm the ordinations that we’ve received. Affirm the calls that we’ve received.
Let’s bless one another in this ministry together.
Question for clarity, please. Why was/is Dr. Lathop’s ordination “broken” (besides the brokenness that results from the “status of the body that we have right now”)? There seems to be a story about Dr. Lathrop and other ordinations that was not included in his remarks or in this story.
Thanks.
Just curious … were there any observers from Lutheran CORE et.al. at the Conference of Bishops’ meeting?
@Chris Duckworth
Chris, that’s a good question, and I don’t have the answer. Perhaps someone else can provide insight.
@Church Grandma & Grandpa
Would it have been constructive to have the anti-ELCA folks who are about their own business of “reconfiguring North American Lutheranism”, including the formation of their own denomination, there to muddy the waters?
Chris, I would believe he was speaking of any ordination outside of the Roman Catholic church as “broken”, which would obviously include Lutherans. Thus, since the Reformation, any ordination outside the RCC would be considered broken if or until the church is reunited.
I actually raised this question in another forum because I was confused as well!
@ Obie — IOVHO, it is more than constructive for the CoB to practice what the Bishops would require of clergy in general (witness the CoB addition to the draft revisions of V&E) — namely, to respect persons who hold all four of what the CWA has decided are now-acceptable points of view on recognition of PALMS unions and rostering of persons living in same. Seems to us that bound conscience cuts both ways.
In any case, we’re still wondering whether only ELM reps were invited as observers and asked to give input at the CoB.