Monday, September 5, 2016

ACCOUNTABILTY AS BUZZWORD. MERE BOILERPLATE OR SIGN OF THINGS TO COME?

Those of us who have worked in the corporate world are familiar with statements issued from the boardrooms and the top executive offices concerning company goals and “philosophy” of purpose.  For a time, these exercises were all the rage on the advice of highly paid consulting firms.  

Many believe that, because money is at stake, business is by necessity more rational and practical minded than the otherwise typical pursuits.  This is widely believed but it is true only to a limited degree.   The truth is, precisely money is involved, business leaders are given to fads, superstitions, and whatever is the current views among experts in the improvement of the bottom line.  Often positive results have been either as best temporary or, more typically, negligible—leaving business titans susceptible to the next enthusiasm to come down the pike.
Middle management flesh out and implement these Olympian visions the best they can because that’s what they do.  Those down the ladder are left to tolerate, listen to this stuff, participate in the prescribed group exercises and then go about their jobs the same as the day before—that is, as long as the visionaries stay out of the way.
Sometimes, however, the results are disastrous.  Speaking metaphorically, higher-ups have been known to take aim, shoot themselves precisely in the foot, and then stumble around for the next six months wondering why it hurts so much.  For the regular employees, the consequences may be the loss of their jobs, or the piling on more responsibilities without the corresponding authority to carry them out-- which compels many to seek other employment. 

The churches, unfortunately, have their own versions of these processes.     The ELCA (which is our main focus) has been swift to adopt whatever enthusiasms which emanate from the political left.   They deny this, of course.  Nevertheless, these enthusiasms are dressed up in religious window dressing.  To be fair, most do not see themselves succumbing to the vapors of the zeitgeist.  They patiently explain to whoever will listen that “X” is not due to the influence of partisan politics but is rather “a matter of the gospel”—perhaps they may even say they are dutifully responding to the movement of the Spirit.   Nevertheless, in view of the chronicles in the larger culture, many doubt the Holy Ghost has much to do with it:  more “spirit” than “Spirit”.

(The more conservative churches themselves are similarly susceptible to the influences from the political right; but that is a subject for another day.)
Which brings us to the Presiding Bishop’s recent column in the August issue of The Living Lutheran magazine (formerly “The Lutheran”).   Entitled “A Proclivity For Paradox”, Bishop Eaton notes that that the Lutheran faith is filled polarities of opposites.  She first illustrates this fact by quoting from Luther’s “Freedom of a Christian”: 

 A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject of all, subject to all.

Out of such LutheranProclivity For Paradox “,  Bishop Eaton explains the recent resolutions to come out the deliberations by synod assemblies, synod councils, the Conference of Bishops, the ELCA Church Council, ELCA ethnic associations, churchwide staff, the Faith Formation Network, individuals, agencies and institutions” after prayer and “considering together” what might be our Lord’s will for the ELCA.  All in the framework of law and gospel, saint and sinner, free and bound, Eaton observes that the Lutheran Church is a “both and” church in an “either or world.”
Which brings us up to the real subject of Eaton’s article:
Spoiler alert: I’m going to lift up two of the themes now. First, in describing what it means to be an ELCA Lutheran or in answering the question “What is God calling the ELCA to become?” we overwhelmingly answered “a diverse, inclusive, multicultural church.” In the settings where I led the conversation, I gently admonished pastors to let the laypeople speak so all of the baptized could be heard. Diversity was understood to be ethnic, economic and generational. We said congregations should reflect the communities in which they are planted. Marvelous!
The second theme I will raise now is that the ELCA is constituted so there is very little enforceable accountability. ELCA members can decide to participate in the life of their congregation or not. Congregations can decide to participate in the life of the synod or greater church or not. Pastors can decide to be engaged beyond their congregations or not. Even synods and bishops are often caught between their specific contexts and participation in churchwide decisions.
 Eaton believes this lack of accountability stems from the congregational structure favored historically by American Christians, the American belief in the autonomy of the individual, and the absent trust among the ELCA members in their relatively new Church.  
(As an addendum, it should be noted that decisions from church assemblies and the various churchwide organizations, councils and associations may have undermined trust for many average Lutherans in the pews is not mentioned.)
Before concluding her article with Luther’s observation that the Christian faith is always personal but never private, Eaton writes:
Our conversations in the Called Forward Together in Christ process show that we believe God is calling us to be a diverse and inclusive church. We need to be clear about our motivation. If it is a desire, no matter how well-intentioned or noble, to diversify the church, I don’t believe God will bless our efforts. But, if it’s our earnest desire to share the intimate and liberating love of Jesus, then we will have to hold each other accountable as we take the hard but holy steps to open up a 94 percent white church.
 (I don’t know where Bishop Eaton gets the 94% number for white Lutherans.  According to the Pew Research Center, 96% of ELCA Lutherans are white while only 2% belong to one of the many minority groups.  One assumes the remaining 2% either refuse to associate themselves with a particular race out of principle or are children of bi-racial marriages.)

At first glance, we can give a full “amen” to Eaton’s assertion that, if our concern is the numbers, God will not bless our efforts to reflect the makeup of the communities the individual local parishes are in nor the makeup of the nation at large.  But on further reflection there are a few troubling thoughts:
[1] Eaton and other ELCA leadership operate from the assumption that, in a free and just society, the various ethnic and racial groups will voluntarily distribute themselves evenly across its assorted institutions and associations.   But economists, sociologists and anthropologists tell us there is little reason to assume that in such a hypothetical ideal culture we would necessarily find individuals choosing to spread themselves out equally across society’s endeavors.   As far as it goes for the Lutheran Church, its theology its appeal.  For the church-shopping folk, most Protestant churches are interchangeable with each other.  Such “attractions” such as engaging preaching, choirs, and children’s programs as decisive in choosing to join a church.  Theology comes in way down the list of essential criteria in joining a particular congregation—somewhere below driving distance.   But the Lutheran Church is not interchangeable with other Protestant churches.  It has a particular “favor” with a particular appeal.  A congregation’s choirs and children’s programs may be nice, but at some time pretty quickly one has to come to terms with its theology.  Compared to other Protestant evangelization, Luther is challenging and demanding.   It is so demanding that sola fide, sola gratia, and Solus Christus come up front and center in nearly everything it does.  More importantly, I can tell you from experience, other Protestants find Lutheran theology impossible to be true.  Other Protestants may shout “by faith alone” to the roof tops, but they are positively allergic to what it actually means.   (In technical terms, Lutherans hold to a divine mongeristic view of justification while most Christians take a synergistic viewpoint.)   Thus for historical, specific, and concrete reasons, one shouldn’t expect every ethnic or racial group to find Lutheran evangelism appealing.
[2] Statements the ELCA leadership have made reflecting their passion in expanding the composition of our membership have led many with the unfortunate impression that the Church our leaders have is not the Church they want.  This has a damaging effect on the cohesiveness within the ELCA its leaders bemoan so much.  This perceived failure of the ELCA’s leadership to accept the church they have only contributes to many in its membership of a sense of alienation from the larger churchwide ELCA.
[3.] “Accountability” is one of those buzzwords one finds in a lot of corporate statements of company values.   Much of the time, it is a mere element of business boilerplate.  But what does it mean here?  Is it also mere boilerplate or it is a sign of things to come?  How would the ELCA enforce such accountability?   Does it mean the ELCA will stick its nose into the operations of each otherwise “independent” congregation?    Who knows?  It could be nothing or it could be nothing.


[4.] As much as we may want a diverse and inclusive church, does God have His own purposes?  By no means is a multicultural/multigenerational congregation a bad thing.  Perhaps having one would even be ideal.  But is it really so easy to see the movement of God around us?   Lincoln noted that churches both in the North and South prayed to the same God, each asking for victory; but God’s providential work transcended the intersessions of both.   In spite of our conviction that a multicultural denomination is a Gospel imperative, nowhere is it promised we will be.  Undoubtedly racism and prejudice plays a large role in how the various races and ethnicities separate themselves into the churches which look most like themselves.   We are a sinful people.  Racism has no excuse and the Church should teach to resist it—beginning first with ourselves.   But even at our best, nowhere is it promised we will have a diverse and inclusive church.  We only think our commendable intentions, earnest outreach, and open hearts will lead to one.   The reality is we often sit back in frustration at the fact that some congregations with weak or even compromised theologies have more diversity without even trying.   How do we account for such things?  This side of the Lord’s return, there is no accounting.  God has his own purposes.  Perhaps, God is more concerned that we proclaim the gospel.
[5.] Has anyone actually gone out to each of the minorities and asked them what they want in a church?  If so, I haven’t read or heard about it.  A search through the web says nothing about it.  However, a 2009 Pew Research Center portrait of African-American religious beliefs show that Black Americans favor mainline Protestant Churches by only 2%.  (Catholic by 5%).  59% overwhelmingly prefer historically Black churches.  Among Blacks who attend church services once a week or more, they are far more likely to believe in the existence of God, miracles, and the existence of angels and demons.  Far more ELCA members entertain doubts or unbelief in each of these.  Moreover, observant Blacks tend to read the Bible literally.    This high degree of Biblical literalism would make ELCA leadership and academia significantly uncomfortable.   Somehow, I don’t think offering a cup of coffee, a cookie, and a warm handshake will obviate these differences.