Since the formation of the ELCA in 1988, the denomination has been shepherded by three presiding Bishops: Herb Chilstrom, H George Anderson, and currently Mark Hanson. Herb and wife Corrine now reside in retirement in St. Peter, Minnesota. On August 26th, Herb penned an op-ed piece for the newspaper in nearby Mankato—his response to the formation of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) as a splinter from the ELCA. Bishop Chilstrom asked three rhetorical questions of those who have departed the ELCA for NALC, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), or another church body.
First, what is it about sex that pushed you over the edge?
The retired Bishop wonders why some elevate questions of sexual behavior over more momentous issues such as abortion, war and peace, and the death penalty. What is it about the sexual behavior of others that causes such a visceral outcry and schismatic response?
[Other issues seem] far more serious than getting upset about two adults of the same gender who, like most of us straight folks, chose to live peacefully in a life-long relationship — the only such pairing the ELCA has approved. Like their straight neighbors, they live peacefully, go to their jobs every morning, pay their taxes, volunteer for good causes and, in many cases, worship with us. What is it that upsets you about this?
Ah, the straw that broke the camel’s back comes the response. The various dissident groups go to great lengths to suggest that LGBT issues were merely the tipping point that reflects a lengthy ELCA drift away from tradition and traditional Biblical interpretations. To be sure, LCMC was formed nearly a decade ago, and many LCMC congregations departed the ELCA prior to CWA09 (but the LCMC has doubled in size since CWA09).
Here is my take. CWA09 resolutions were not the tipping point but the opportunity seized upon by long time ELCA detractors to scare the the folks in the pews into following their leadership. For much of the hierarchy of WordAlone, CORE, NALC, and even LCMC, their disaffection with the ELCA goes back to the very beginning, and it can all be summed up in one word—CONTROL. This blog has previously critiqued the comments of dissident theologians Nestingen, Braaten, and Benne who in similar ways lamented the egalitarian impulses of the newly formed ELCA thereby diminishing the power of the male elites. Over the years, this coterie repeatedly attempted, unsuccessfully, to achieve leadership status within the ELCA.
But then came CWA09. They saw their chance and they took it. CWA09 handed the dissidents a cultural wedge issue that they could use to drive ELCA congregants and congregations away from the ELCA and into their own organization, under their control. So, Herb, it is not about sex. Nor is it truly about Biblical interpretation. Here the Missouri Synod critique of the new Lutheran church bodies makes sense—if these new organizations truly want to be Biblical traditionalists, why do they allow female clergy? Or divorced clergy? The existence of female and divorced clergy within their ranks puts the lie to the claim that it is all about strict and traditional Biblical interpretation. No, Herb, it is something else. It is all about power and control.
Here is Bishop Chilstrom’s second question:
Second, why are you organizing new churches?
Surely there must be one among them [existing Lutheran bodies] that would welcome you. Why go to all the unnecessary expense of setting up an entirely new structure with officers, boards, committees and institutions?
This might be a good place to interject some basic data about the numerous small and uniformly conservative Lutheran Church bodies that exist in the US in open criticism of the more-progressive ELCA. For comparison, the ELCA has over 10,000 congregations and over 4 million members (statistics for each derived from Wikipedia or the organization’s website)
- Missouri Synod (LCMS) 2.4 million members
- Wisconsin Synod (WELS) 1,300 congregations
- Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) 500 congregations
- Free Lutheran Churches (AFLC) 270 congregations
- Lutheran Brethren 123 Congregations
- North American Lutheran Church (NALC) 18 congregations.
Bishop Chilstrom assumes the reason why LCMC and NALC don’t join one of the other bodies is because LCMC and NALC will continue to ordain women as their legacy from the ELCA. I know the LCMC is attempting to to position itself as the moderate middle of Lutherandom with the more progressive ELCA on the left and the more conservative others on the right. There would also appear to be an organizational difference between LCMC (congregational autonomy) and NALC (a denominational structure). I have previously characterized LCMC as a website and a mailing list. Their organizational paid staff is minimal. No seminaries, no colleges, no candidacy committees, no disaster relief, no missionary support, no … fill in the blank. It is merely an affiliation of like minded congregations that are free to do their own thing with minimal organizational support or control.
There’s that word again. CONTROL. See the answer to number 1, Herb.
Here is Bishop Chilstrom’s final question:
Third, what will you say to your sons and daughters, sisters and brothers and others in your churches when they tell you they are homosexual?
This is the nub of it. We can argue about “gay issues” till we’re blue in the face, but we miss the human element. This not some academic argument; this is about real lives, children of God, baptized brothers and sisters. I asked last week how many church bulletins proclaim “all are welcome”—and really mean it.
“What will you say to your sons and daughters?” Herb asks.
Will you offer empty platitudes (hate the sin but love the sinner)? Will you “pray the gay away?” Will you offer junk science such as reparative therapy that will only deepen their pain? Will you turn your back or offer an embrace?
Retired Pastor Duane from my congregation tells the story of the gay high school boy who came out to him and then asked Duane to accompany him when he came out to his parents.
Mom came out of the kitchen, wiping her hands on her apron, with a worried look on her face when the pair arrived in the driveway.
“Mom, I’m gay,” the boy said.
“Is that all?” and mom smiled with relief and gave her son a hug.
They were still in the driveway when dad arrived in the pickup with mud flaps and a rifle slung in the rear window. He exited the cab with a mixed expression of anger and concern.
“Dad, I’m gay”, the son said.
Dad’s face drained of all color, and his eyes turned black. He looked at his son, his wife, Pastor Duane, and back at his son. Then, his eyes moistened and his lips quivered.
“I don’t understand,” he said, his voice cracking, “and I probably never will. But, you’re my son, and I love you.” Father and son fell into each other’s arms, shaking and sobbing.
This isn’t about doctrine, or confessionalism, or Biblical interpretation, and it ought not be about control. This is about grace. This is about trust. Let go and let God. Listen to the wisdom of Herb Chilstrom:
I am both sad and relieved that you are leaving. Sad, because this was not what we hoped for when the ELCA was formed some 22 years ago. We believed we could be a church where we held to the essentials and allowed for differences on non-essentials.
But I am also relieved. Now those of us who remain in the ELCA can get on with our primary mission of telling everyone — everyone — “Jesus loves you. You are welcome in this church.”
Just wow. I stand with Bishop Chilstrom – let’s get back to welcoming each other in, not excluding each other out ….
“Second, why are you organizing new churches? Why go to all the unnecessary expense of setting up an entirely new structure with officers, boards, committees and institutions?
One reason would to be to provide customers for a publishing venture.
Wow. Bishop Chilstrom is awesome. Love the three questions!
@Obie
LCMC has no control, so this is about contro.
This logic is strange even for you. You actually have no problem with control … as long as it is in hands you regard as friendly. In another post you lament that LCMC has no candidacy process. As one who has been through it, let me assure you that that process is all about control.
So much for bound conscience. I am sure the traditionalists still in ELCA would love to have this kind of pastoral care.
Bound conscience always seemed to me like an interesting idea in theory, but I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how it was supposed to work in real life.
I also think that societal realities in this country are such that mediated positions are really tough to maintain, whether in the sacred or secular realm. The apparent breakdown of civility in society at large certainly doesn’t help matters – which is why it was so fascinating to watch the CWA09. It was amazingly civil, in an era of media hotheads and the ease of access to a microphone, website, or blog.
At some point, one has to be honest about whether trying to maintain a delicate balance vis-a-vis bound conscience is short-circuiting the church’s mission. Tough discussions and choices, to be sure.
Back in the ’90s, at the time of Herb’s presiding episcopacy, the original Visions and Expectations, and an earlier study regarding same-gender attraction that was shelved quickly, the ELCA’s statement was clear: It’s not about orientation, it’s about behavior. Fast forward to the op-ed piece from Herb, which, sadly, is no where near reflective of the kind, pastoral former presiding bishop, let alone his explanations of the issues back in another century. What’s changed? Not Scripture, last we checked.
Bishop Chilstrom: It is so good to hear your wisdom. It has been a while and I so deeply appreciate it. Blessings on your and Corene. Peace.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my meaning.
I understand that LCMC has little organizational authority over congregations, and that’s not what I implied. But, the issue is control in the sense that individual pastors and congregations want to be in control without ceding any authority, real or imagined, to a denomination. It is religious libertarianism.
It’s not about sex. It is about God’s Holy Word. Last August’s actions in the ELCA made adherence to Scripture optional. Where there is no sin, there is no need for repentance, and there is no need for Christ. As an ELCA pastor I grieve this “it’s all okay & it’s whatever you believe” approach to God’s Word.
Do not judge those considering (or already in) the NALC and LCMC. The ELCA got what they wanted here. Allow them the bound conscience you seek for yourself.
Bp. Chilstrom asks some touch and important questions, which I fear are all too often being ignored amidst uproar and high emotions that have been whipped up in too many places. I welcome his raising them, and his wisdom and honesty as he closes his Free Press commentary.
@Tony
It seems to me that the structure of the LCMC, or rather its existing largely without any structure, is all about control. Oh, it’s not about the umbrella organization controlling things, but about congregations being able to control without having to answer to anyone else. Obie has it right, it’s religious libertarianism. I’ll stop there lest I say something intemperate about it.
@Jeff
It’s interesting how you turn the notion of respect for bound consciences into a club to be wielded against further discourse or for mutual accountability, and into a situation in which those who disagree with the decisions of CWA09 must be given free range while those who support those decisions must sit down and shut up, lest they violate “bound conscience”. But the respect for one another’s bound conscience is supposed to be a two way street, and it is not an invitation to cease discourse and no longer hold one another accountable while maintaining that people of good will and common faith can continue together in Christ with differing views on the matter.
Our congregations were once places where people with differing political and even theological positions could (and often did) worship together as community of human beings around a common faith in Christ Jesus, around the promise of God’s grace for all of us. Sure, there are many examples of fights over matters great and small, some of them very wounding. Life is never rosy perfection. But over the last several decades, such communities have become increasingly strained. Like our culture around us, our congregations and churches are pushed to tow a line of the “right” way to believe. The idea of respecting bound conscience could be a way toward recovering that common center despite differences political, social, or theological. Unfortunately, some have chosen to ridicule the notion instead of embrace a more central identity of those who have put on Christ in our baptisms, trusting in God more than things of our own making and choosing.
The isssue is not welcoming homosexuals into the church. With the recongnition of homosexuals living together, I beleive that the ELCA mininizes marriage. Why does the church reconize homosexuals in a long term relationship and not heterosexuals in a long term relationship who are living together. If this is the case, why get married at all? Is the ELCA endorsing living together outside marriage? It looks that way.
People have lived together for years and years but this is the first time I can remember that the church is endorsing this idea.
“We believed we could be a church where we held to the essentials and allowed for differences on non-essentials.”
Why the past tense, Bishop Chilstrom? Don’t you believe that anymore? Do you really think that with the formation of NALC there will be no more traditionalists in ELCA? Do you really believe that the formation of the NALC means there will be no more disagreement among non-essentials? Well, how very convenient.
The decisions of the CWA ’09 were supposed to allow for a diversity of views. Some don’t buy that and are moving on. Well, okay. But for those that are remaining and hold the traditional views, Bishop Chilstrom is demonstrating what those remaining have feared–the traditionalist will be persona non grata in the new ELCA. “Don’t like the new way? Why don’t you go over to the NALC then? They LOVE your type over there.”
The last paragraph is the most telling.
“But I am also relieved. Now those of us who remain in the ELCA can get on with our primary mission of telling everyone — everyone — ‘Jesus loves you. You are welcome in this church.’ ”
Once again, as common among the progressive voice, “you are welcome” comes with the caveat that “you” better to think like us or, at least, stay quiet.
As a common everyday Christian, I wonder where it all ends? I suppose we may as well tell the drunks…go ahead stay drunk, it’s ok….or the prostitutes….it’s ok…it’s the oldest profession known to man…Seems to me anything goes in the ELCA these day. Did not Jesus say go and sin no more? Did he not state specific sins that are abominations to the Lord? And what does II Timothy 4:2-3 warn of?
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season, Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itiching ears, they will heap up for themselves teacher. And they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things….This has nothing to do with control and everything to do with turning away from Gods Word, because God’s word pierces like a sword and people can no longer handle the truth.
@Tim
Not to be flippant, Tim, but most states don’t acknowledge or allow same-sex marriage. If all 50 states allowed it, I’m sure the ELCA’s wording on its stance on same-sex unions would be different and would include the marriage clause to it. But we live in a very heteronormative culture where these rights are not yet afforded to our GLBTQ peers.
I think what the ELCA is attempting to do is acknowledge that these are individuals who would be married if the law would allow it. It isn’t a statement on “shacking up” but on long-term, committed relationships. It isn’t just about rostering clergy, but allowing for congregations, if they see fit, to afford that blessing of marriage/union in the eyes of the church.
And individuals that want to bring their marriage/union to the church aren’t doing it because they want to flaunt it in the eyes of CORE, LCMC, NALC or whatever Confessional Alphabet Soup may be out there. They are doing it for the same reason any heterosexual couple decides to have their union recognized in the church.
They want God to be part of their marriage and family.
If that didn’t matter to any of us, there is the civil service option.
So I ask you and others, why are you threatened by a GLBTQ couple wanting God to be part of their relationship? Why do heterosexual couples have that sole right?
I want to say something really profound and loving but I can think of nothing accept other questions? An important one is where can GLBT Christians go to worship God in peace? Where can they share their faith without being condemmed? Where? What do they do when, as disciples of Jesus, they find someone that they dearly love and want to spend their life with them? How do they celebrate that in a Christian way? Of course, these are moot points because there are no GLBT Christians are there? An elderly man at a Bible Study I led once (out of the blue!!) told me that those “gays” better stay away from him and his church or else. So, then I asked him also, “Then, Benny, where do they worship?”
Good point Cyndy. My UCC pastor was telling that a gay couple in the area are looking for a church that would accept them as married. This is Clintonville- cautious conservative Clintonville where even the UCC church is not that open.
I know of a Unitarian lesbian couple that are attending an ELCA church in Appleton.
This is a hard question–especially for men. Right–its SIN. Now is the church there for sinners or is the church there for anyone who has never sinned ? I have always got funny looks from people when I made the statement “If we weren’t all sinners we wouldn’t need the church.”
@Obie Holmen & Mark Christianson
Religious libertarianism! ROTFL. You guys make the Freedom of the Christian sound like a bad thing.
@Ken Reed
So if it’s about God’s Holy Word when it’s about gays and lesbians, but we can ordain women, eat shell fish, and permit divorce? I do not understand the inconsistency.
@Tony. hmmm. I’ve read and preached on The Freedom of a Christian many times, and I still don’t quite get your statement.
@ Tim
I underline what Kelly says about marriage and the supposedly diminishment of it. I also add this, which is a sentence from the social statement on sexuality: “[T]his church urges couples to seek the highest social and legal support for their relationships.” I don’t see how the ELCA has diminished the ideals of marriage or of commitment.
@Tim Fisher
Agreed. It is disingenous to deny marriage equality and then blame gays for not getting married.
@Tony
I’m not sure how you can possibly go from Luther’s Freedom of a Christian to a radical independence of every local Lutheran Christian community (otherwise known as a congregation). It seems to me that this requires ignoring much of the actual text of that treatise, especially the part of being a dutiful servant, and relying on some pastiche of it’s title and philosophical and political ideas imported from elsewhere. There is, in the model to which “religious libertarianism” has been applied, a move away from mutual accountability and community beyond the local parish, and in some cases, it would seem, even within the local parish. A mere association does not a community, much less a church, make. This is a serious misstep, and one that tends toward a danger of failing to discern the body of Christ, that is, his church.
@Diane Roth and Mark C. Christianson
I was going for a pun by capitalizing and wording it that way. But, as Luther says, “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” This latter statement is about how we live our lives in service to our neighbor, not submission to ecclesiastical authority.
Mark, do you have any experience of LCMC other than this blog? You describe something that does not exist in my experience. That the local congregation has autonomy is demonstrated by Luther in his 1523 treatise “THAT A CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY OR CONGREGATION HAS THE RIGHT AND POWER TO JUDGE ALL TEACHING AND TO CALL, APPOINT, AND DISMISS TEACHERS, ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN BY SCRIPTURE. LW 39:301” But the association has in fact functioned with a great deal of accountability.
Finally, Mark, nothing we do or can do can “a church make.” For all of Secy Almen pronouncements about “this Church”, the ELCA is not the church, nor is the whole of LCMC or the ELCA part of the church. The church, a creation of the Holy Spirit, is hidden. Basic Lutheran theology. Any claim that an institution is the church is itself a failure to discern the Body of Christ.
Blessings
TS
@Deborah R Owens
Thank you for speaking the Truth
@Janet Y Muldoon
Putting a capital “T” on “Truth” says a lot about your self-assurance.
It describes my total lack of self-assurance and my total dependence on Jesus Christ, whom I believe to be the True Son of God. Jesus said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me”. “God so Loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son that who so ever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” These are Biblical Truths. Christs Word is Truth.
@Janet Y Muldoon
Are you sure it’s not your Word and your Truth? Or, at least, your interpretation therof? It seems that those who loudly trumpet “Truth” and “Word” are pretty self assured in their understanding.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Tony, I am no longer a member of the LCMC church here in Clintonville but a couple weeks ago I talked to one of the members who is on the council and is an officer in the women’s group. She is very active . When she was talking about my leaving, all she could say was “Pastors don’t stay forever” and then she went to a lengthy discussion of how the congregation had to oust a pastor that became unfit to serve as a pastor, and that they needed to have the bishop help them get him out. The same happened when the next pastor got cancer (and may have run off with the church secretary). Again the bishop helped the congregation. These things were not addressed or were hushed up when the congregation was voting on LCMC. I fear the same could happen in the future. Is there any one in authority that an LCMC congregation can turn to if the pastor becomes the problem ? If not, then I think your group is hiding from reality.
@Lilly
There is no doubt that there will be problems. But part of being an association that is accountable to one another is that we do try to live out that “perfectly dutiful servant of all” thing. Which is why I have gone everywhere I have been invited to discuss LCMC (… and not always to advocate that a congregation join.)
LCMC is relatively young and new at this. But we already have a history of pastors, congregations, the ministry board, the staff (small as it is) and the board of Trustees stepping in when invited to help work through such difficulties. One of the newest districts in LCMC will have committees of folks to help provide those (and call committee assistance) services to congregations that ask.
A flat, bottom up system is not perfect, but I have seen enough disasters in the top-down model to tell you that I would prefer the former.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Thanks Tony. Hopefully that will help. I think this is one reason I was wishing the congregation had waited for something like NALC instead of the semi independent LCMC. Perhaps you have some people or a person in each district that is good at trouble shooting. He/she doesn’t have to be called bishop but maybe could have some authority to step in – or is this the board of trustees you are talking about? The pastor mentioned above had some psychological issues and treated some members poorly. This is a hard thing for congregations to understand and deal with.
What a grace-filled servant of God is Bishop Chilstrom.
LCMC is relatively young and new at this. But we already have a history of pastors, congregations, the ministry board, the staff (small as it is) and the board of Trustees stepping in when invited to help work through such difficulties. One of the newest districts in LCMC will have committees of folks to help provide those (and call committee assistance) services to congregations that ask.
Thanks, Tony for referring to “one of the newest districts” in LCMC and its intent to offer services to congregations through committees rather than through a staff organization. That would be the Augustana District — http://www.augustanadistrict.org for those who might want to have a look-see at this alternative within LCMC.
Please note that the first paragraph of the previous post from us is quoting Tony’s earlier post. We old folks are still learning how to use this technology, including things like the “quote feature”. Apologies.
@Church Grandma and Grandpa
No apology necessary. Blessings. TS
@Mark,
When someone says they are relieved because people leave a church body, that is not a two way street. As much as you want to claim that bound conscience is a two way street,it is not the traditionalists shutting off the discourse. It is people like former Bishop Chilstrom with comments that basically dismiss at least (according to the most recent poll of HSGT before CWA 2009) somewhere between 50-60 percent of ELCA laypeople.
This is the modus operand of those who pushed through the changes, and an ELCA church council which refused to seek consensus and instead promoted a divisive vote.
You are correct, there is no two way street. But those blocking the road are not traditionalists on this issue.
@Jeff
Wait a minute, Jeff, you led your church out of the ELCA some months ago and now you accuse Bishop Chilstrom and the ELCA of “shutting off discourse”.
@Hobie,
Last I looked, we were still in the ELCA. We have taken a first vote. And I didn’t lead anyone out of the ELCA, a lay lead task force did.
Another common mistake by “progressive” (or whatever you are called) folks, that churches considering leaving or those that have left are led out of the ELCA by clergy. While certainly true in some cases, in many cases this is not true. It is the laity that is most upset and in many cases wishing to leave. And probably one factor is that in the last poll before CWA 2009 55-60% of laity opposed the changes. Hmmmmmm.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Freedom of a Christian isn’t about freedom from ecclesiastical authority, either. It’s about grace, faith, salvation, and all that. The exercise of authority in the church is a first use matter, it’s for discipline so that Christians may live together as a community in which both the freedom and the service of Luther’s dual theses may thrive and be realized (at least as much as can be). The primary point in my objection to your use of Luther’s Freedom of a Christian is that it inappropriately applies it to an area it doesn’t address. Further, your application of one thesis to church authority and discipline without it’s balance of dutiful and willing service is out of balance and out of keeping with the text of the treatise. To then beg off of the dutiful servant portion as being about something other than ecclesiastical authority is nothing other than special pleading.
I make no claims that the ELCA, or any other church body, is the church entire. But it is the church. The church is not hidden. Read the Augsburg Confession. Our most basic confession as Lutherans speak of the church as the assembly in which the gospel is taught and the sacraments administered. That is a very concrete definition of the church. It doesn’t exist as some invisible (and therefore basically imagined) entity. It is based in actual assembly and in real action. Many Lutherans have long been enamored of this (Platonic) idea of an invisible church, for any number of reasons, not least of which is that it gives some comfort to us fractious Protestants that we really haven’t rent the real Church as we have split into a dizzying array of institutions. Yet this idea of an invisible church is not confessional, or at least not in keeping with the Augsburg Confession, and remains, simply, hogwash.
I am leaving the Elca since this church has chosen to follow the rules of government and man and gone away from Sacred Scripture. I wish it were never formed. The LCA was more involved in daily life. More into Sacred Scripture. Politically Correct has no place in His Church. I believe we are to love others as ourselves, we are not to have pastors who lead alternative lifestyles. they can serve in other capacities fitting their talents. God forgives our sins, we may not judge them, but judge, discern what behavior God accepts. Genesis 18 is very clear. When a church goes away from God it is time to leave
@patti
Really ? I used to live in the Milwaukee area. A friend of my kids is homo sexual and got “married ” in an LCA church there. I do wish the CWA09 issue had gone the other way for now but there are many ELCA pastors and members who are going to live with this decision and deal with it at a congregation level.
@Mark C. Christianson
Mark, do not put words in my mouth. I did not call the church invisible, but hidden.
Per Luther: The church is a high, deep, hidden thing which one may neither perceive nor see, but must grasp only by faith, through baptism, sacrament, and word. Human doctrine, ceremonies, tonsures, long robes, miters, and all the pomp of popery only lead far away from it into hell—still less are they signs of the church. Naked children, men, women, farmers, citizens who possess no tonsures, miters, or priestly vestments also belong to the church.
Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther’s Works, Vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1966 (Luther’s Works 41), S. 41:211
This is reflected in the AC Article 8 “VIII. [What Is the Church?]
1 Properly speaking, the church is the assembly of saints and true believers. However, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled with believers, it is allowable to use the sacraments even when they are administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,” etc. (Matt. 23:2).”
Tappert, Theodore G.: The Augsburg Confession : Translated from the Latin. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 33
As Dennis Bielfeldt puts it, “For Lutherans, the visible church is the hidden church as it gathers around Word and Sacrament. “Church” only can be improperly predicated of the visible church because only some members of the visible church really are members of the hidden church. Lutheran Orthodoxy understood that “church” could be predicated of this visible association only by synechdoche, that is, only by a figure of speech where a word is applied to the whole of a thing because it can properly be applied to a part of the thing. “Church” can properly be applied only to the hidden church subsection of the whole visible church. The visible church contains no ecclesial being above and beyond that afforded to the hidden church, and thus no being above and beyond that of individual members.”
Since the institutional church is full of hypocrites and evil persons, the true church is hidden on earth. This is not Platonism; it is a Lutheran paradox, based in Paul. As I said, basic Lutheran theology.
@Mark C. Christianson
And those things you cannot see are “therefore basically imagined”? 🙁
Hebrews 1:11, friend.
“< Human doctrine, ceremonies, tonsures, long robes, miters, and all the pomp of popery only lead far away from it into hell—still less are they signs of the church. Naked children, men, women, farmers, citizens who possess no tonsures, miters, or priestly vestments also belong to the church.”
I have often wondered at the processionals at Lutheran ceremonies or conventions with all the clergy robed and looking ” pompous”. To me it was the royalty of the church or at least a copy of European royalty. To me the folks who say “God be merciful to me a sinner” and know what life is all about ARE the church of Jesus Christ. Hidden church ? Yes, hidden in our hearts.
@Lilly
Well said.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Hidden vs. invisible seems a distinction without difference to me. Besides the opening line from the Luther quote not only says it is supposedly hidden, but that it cannot be seen or perceived. That sounds like “invisible” to me.
Further, Luther’s opening line is something that should probably be read as having something of hyperbole about it, for it is pretty much contradicted just two sentences later when he points to ordinary people who have not taken vows as also belonging to the church. The quote comes from a rather strong, even violent, polemic against a “papist” opponent, and his point is that the church cannot be identified with clerical trappings. Rather, it is the people of God, regular people, not just clerics and ceremonies and such. Besides, while Luther is the hero of our tradition, his writings do not define our theological position. But the Augsburg Confession formally does. So I’ll stick with the definition of AC Article 7 over one of Luther’s polemics (especially if it is to be taken as a few sentences at face value without critical appraisal and context).
Your quote from AC Article 8 is rather beside the point, for it has nothing to do with the church being hidden or visible, but rather that the sacraments (and the church) is not dependent on moral or theological purity of those in it, but only upon the word of Christ. It is an anti-Donatist statement.
The scholastic theology of Lutheran Orthodoxy didn’t always make for the best building upon the Reformation tradition and concessions. Bielfeldt describes a view of the church that has concern for it having some form of purity, which then leads to the introduction of these fine distinctions to preserve that notion rather than an evaluation of that idea of purity which AC articles 7 and 8 should call into question. For the most part, we are quite willing to accept that the humanity of Christ means that Jesus spat up on Mary, dirtied his diapers, and even went through the “terrible twos,” and so forth. Yet it seems very hard for us to accept that the church might also include (even by design!) humans with all their foibles and follies. The church, per AC article 7, is people in need of redemption and grace, and the place they meet it. And in article 8 we are reminded that God’s work is not invalidated because he uses sinful and broken human beings to bring the grace and mercy of Christ to the world. The church is not an abstraction or a hidden perfection, but the assembly where actual broken humans meet God’s grace. The idea of a hidden church isn’t “Lutheran paradox” but a failure to grasp the incredibly concrete and very wide definition of the church in AC 7 which is rooted in the gospel of Christ.
@Mark C. Christianson
“The church, per AC article 7, is people in need of redemption and grace, and the place they meet it. And in article 8 we are reminded that God’s work is not invalidated because he uses sinful and broken human beings to bring the grace and mercy of Christ to the world. The church is not an abstraction or a hidden perfection, but the assembly where actual broken humans meet God’s grace. The idea of a hidden church isn’t “Lutheran paradox” but a failure to grasp the incredibly concrete and very wide definition of the church in AC 7 which is rooted in the gospel of Christ.”
It strikes me that much of what you have said here is very agreeable. But it also tends toward (perhaps not your intent) a sort of “in the pews” universalism. CA8 argues for a classical idea of ex opere operato, as opposed to the more modern notion where Michael Corleone is in the kingdom by virtue of receiving the sacraments, even absent faith. (Hence CA XIII.)
A distinction without a difference? Invisible cannot be seen. Hidden is that which can and will be revealed.
Good discussion. Thanks.
Blessings, TS
The idea of the would be agreed with byt Doesn’t your notion that
If you are interested, here is someone else’s take on Bp Chilstrom’s 3 questions …
Reply to Bishop Chilstrom
By Jonathan Sorum
First Evangelical Lutheran Church
Parkers Prairie, MN
Bishop Chilstrom, you have asked three questions of us. I suspect that you intend them as rhetorical questions, but I will take them as real questions and reply to them, one by one.
“First,” you ask, “what is it about sex that pushed you over the edge?” Bishop Chilstrom, we aren’t the ones who kept bringing up sex throughout the lifetime of the ELCA. When you kept bringing it up, we were willing enough to talk about it—even though you stacked the numbers so that only one traditionalist was on the first sex task force and three on the second. But as soon as the conversation started, you changed the subject. Instead of talking about sex, suddenly you insisted on talking about identity. And identity is not discussable. If someone’s sexual feelings give them a God-given “sexual identity,” then even to say that expressing that identity is a sin is an act of oppression. So your side made sure that there never was a conversation in this church about sex. And then, when you ram through a change in church teaching and policy (not, as you claim, a mere declaration of non-binding opinion) that overturns the clear teachings of the Scriptures and the entire tradition of the church and we object, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of being obsessed by sex!
Bishop Chilstrom, let me turn the question back on you: What is it about sex that pushed you over the edge? Sometime in the past you decided that the final authority that defines who a person is and what a person ought to do comes from within. Especially in matters of sex, you decided that you would set aside God’s own gracious and life-giving word in favor of each individual’s self-definition of their “sexual identity.” Why? You have vowed to preach Christ alone. What is it about sex that led you to abandon Christ and deliver people over to be slaves to their own desires?
For us it’s not about sex. It’s about Jesus Christ. You accuse us of persecuting people in same-sex relationships who “live peacefully, go to their jobs every morning, pay their taxes, volunteer for good causes and, in many cases, worship with us.” But we are not judging people. We know the log in our own eye and have no standing to judge others. But since Jesus alone has saved us from bondage to sin and death, we do insist that he alone, as he speaks clearly and reliably in the whole Bible, has the authority to determine the shape of our lives. I repeat: it’s about Jesus Christ. People are leaving the ELCA because it has officially renounced the lordship of Christ as he speaks in Holy Scripture. All of us in resistance to the ELCA have been saying this, constantly, in many forums. If the only reason you have heard for people leaving the ELCA is that the homosexuality vote was ‘the last straw,” then you have not been listening.
“Second,” you ask, “why are you organizing new churches?” The answer is simple: As congregations and individuals, we need to be connected to the larger church, which will both support our proclamation of the Word of God and hold us accountable to the Word of God. The ELCA no longer does either. The larger church supports our proclamation of the Word by providing us with such things as educational and worship materials that are faithful to the Word, by training and certifying pastors and ministers who will faithfully proclaim the Word, and by providing ways to extend our ministry beyond our communities. But the education, worship and other materials provided by the ELCA for use in congregations are shot through with an alien agenda, most of the pastors and ministers it now trains are not competent to preach the gospel, and its home and global missions are in captivity to a false gospel. The larger church holds us accountable to the Word by providing teaching that is in accord with the Word and by disciplining pastors and congregations that veer from the Word in their preaching or actions. But the ELCA itself is committed to false teaching and immorality, so it cannot be trusted anymore to hold us accountable to God’s Word. Far from supporting us in our ministry, the ELCA undermines us at every turn. So we have been forced to turn elsewhere for support and to create new church institutions that will hold us accountable to God’s Word.
In doing so, we are deeply aware of the support and prayers of many members of the other Lutheran bodies you mention. But for the most part, we have not found it possible to join them and you know very well why. We represent the center of Lutheranism in North America. We would gladly join with other Lutherans who have maintained the substance of the faith, but they won’t have us except on condition that we subscribe to a view of biblical inspiration at odds with the Lutheran Confessions and the Bible itself. So now that you and others have hijacked our denomination for your agenda, we in the Lutheran center have been rendered institutionally homeless. If we want to continue the Lutheran traditions that carried the gospel to us, we have no choice but to start over with new denominational institutions. You mock our efforts, but your jibe about the ordination of women inadvertently reveals what we used to have in our churches and have now lost. You remind us that Lutherans “fought intensely” over this issue. Yes, we used to be able to engage one another on the basis of the Scriptures, in the light of Christian tradition. We even “fought” each other “intensely” because we used to believe that what the Scriptures said really mattered and was worth fighting for. Would that such a thing could happen in the ELCA now! Perhaps it will surprise you to know that we who are in resistance to the ELCA don’t agree on everything. However, among us truly theological discussion can proceed because we all stand on the same foundation of Jesus Christ and confession of the Triune God and all acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures are the one source and norm of our faith and life. Among us, you will find the true freedom of the gospel and real diversity, not the soul-numbing ideological conformity that is now the norm in the ELCA.
Finally, you ask us, “[W]hat will you say to your sons and daughters, sisters and brothers and others in your church when they tell you that they are homosexual?” To begin with, moral truth isn’t determined by majority votes, even by a 95 percent majority of “professionals in the field.” Nor will we accept anyone’s verdict that they “are” homosexual. Who they “are” is not determined by what is within them, but by what God’s Word says to them. According to God’s Word, they are, like all of us, human beings, created in God’s image but turned in on themselves in sin. They are among those for whom Christ died and for whom he broke the grave and they are destined for life with him in God’s eternal kingdom. It may also be true that, in our present fallen condition, they experience sexual desire primarily toward those of the same sex and that this is not something they have chosen. But these feelings do not constitute an identity, to which they must conform. Instead, Jesus gives them their true identity as children of his Father and shows them the way of life in his Word. Perhaps that way will include sufficient healing for marriage to be possible. But if they must go the single way, then Jesus will be enough and more than enough for them and will fill their lives with love and every good gift. Sex, after all, is not the end-all and be-all of life.
Which brings me back to your first and last question: What is it about sex that pushed you over the edge? Why this virtual worship of sex, as if our sexual desires (of all things!) were a pure and unadulterated revelation of God’s will for our lives, trumping even the Word of God, and having the kind of sex we want with the kind of partner we want were the ultimate fulfillment of life, for which everything that stands in the way—spouse, children, parents, society, friends, even the Bible, even Christ himself—must be sacrificed? Why, Bishop Chilstrom, have you fallen for one of the oldest idols in the Book?
You are glad to get rid of us. Now, you say, you can get on with your “primary mission of telling everyone—everyone–`Jesus loves you. You are welcome in this church.’” Precisely! This is the false gospel you have chosen for yourself. In this gospel there is no repentance or new birth. We don’t need Jesus (to use your word, he is one of the “non-essentials”), because we are basically good and don’t need a Savior. We only need to accept ourselves, as God accepts us. And we don’t need to receive the Holy Spirit, because we all already have the Holy Spirit within us, speaking through our own deepest sense of who we are. Nor do we need preaching, because once we know we are welcome, that’s all we need to know. The church, too, is dispensable because everyone is in principle already included and people don’t really have any reason to gather except to celebrate themselves and they can do that in many contexts using many different symbols and images—the goddess, the Buddha, the divine that is within us, whatever. Yes, in the so-called church that you have helped fashion, everybody is included.
Except us. You have no room in your new church for self-confessed sinners who want to listen to Jesus Christ alone. So we have no choice but to go on, grieving for the wreck of our church, but joyful because we have Jesus and filled with hope because his Spirit always goes before us and creates a new future for his people. We can admit that we, too, have a feeling of relief when we find ourselves in God’s church, where we feel ourselves supported in confessing the gospel and not undermined at every turn. But that you and so many others have turned aside to go your own way is in no way a relief. It is an unmitigated sorrow. We will never release you. We will continue to call you to Christ and to pray for you, urgently beseeching God that you may turn and live.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Early Hebrews believed they had been created in the image of God. Science tells us that we have only one chromosome difference from the chimpanzees. Now who do we act like ? Is it God or apes? Could it be that we have evolved backwards ? There is a lot of homosexual behavior among the apes and monkeys. There is homosexual behavior among other animals such as sheep and cattle. If you try to be like God or think you are God, of course this idea will offend you. But it would seem that we are still animals in most ways– a little higher intellegence than the apes but not equal with the angels.
@Tony Stoutenburg
A fine example of the self-assured, self-righteous, shrill hyperbole that stills actual discourse, to wit:
“What is it about sex that led you to abandon Christ”
“[the ELCA] has officially renounced the lordship of Christ”
“education, worship and other materials provided by the ELCA for use in congregations are shot through with an alien agenda”
“most of the pastors and ministers it now trains are not competent to preach the gospel”
“Why, Bishop Chilstrom, have you fallen for one of the oldest idols in the Book?”
“[You say]`Jesus loves you. You are welcome in this church.’” Precisely! This is the false gospel you have chosen for yourself.”