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 Lutheran
“Proclivity
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.
