[1] The church is about speaking and listening. For those
who believe the church has responsibility in and for society, it
follows quite naturally that Christians should talk together about
the relationship of the faith to their responsibilities.
Christians have done so for centuries in a variety of ways, and in
a democratic society with its emphasis on citizen participation,
the obligation has even more plausibility.
[2] Such thinking helped shape the notion found in early ELCA
documents that envisioned the church as "a community of moral
deliberation."1 This vision was meant
both to equip Christians for their callings in daily life and to
provide a context for developing social statements.
Christians were to talk together to "discern what is the will of
God-what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2).
The church, it was recognized, was more than a community of moral
deliberation; yet intentional efforts to be such a community could
help bridge the gap between faith and life and be a way to
contribute to the well-being of society. Many congregations
were already involved in such conversations, and, it was hoped,
more would be. The predecessor church bodies had experimented
with participatory models for developing social statements, and by
placing social statements within this vision, the intention was to
deepen and extend these models.
[3] Certainly during these early years of the ELCA one can find
evidence of lively moral deliberation in congregations, synods,
colleges, seminaries, publications, electronic meetings, and other
venues-including Journal of Lutheran Ethics.2 The lengthy process for
developing social statements has contributed to the strong
affirmation churchwide assemblies have given to the eight ELCA
social statements. Publications coming from the Division for
Church in Society as well as from ethicists have set out habits and
skills needed for civil and respectful conversation of
controversial issues-including how to do so in a cross-cultural
context. There has been much "talk about talking" with
people proposing, defending, and questioning different
understandings and practices of the church as a community of moral
deliberation. Judgments about its significance, coherence,
faithfulness, use, and impact remain contested. A
critical history of the concept and the way it has been practiced
in the ELCA has yet to be written.
[4] At present the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is
experiencing a time of testing as a community of moral
deliberation-or is it more accurately described as a "crisis" in
deliberation? I refer of course to the controversy
surrounding the "Report and Recommendations from the Task Force for
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Studies on Sexuality," and
the pending Churchwide Assembly's consideration of the Church
Council's "Recommendations on Sexuality Studies," particularly the
third recommendation that calls for creating a process "which may
permit exceptions to the expectations regarding sexual conduct for
gay and lesbian candidates and rostered leaders in life-long,
committed, and faithful same-sex relationships who otherwise are
determined to be in compliance with Vision and
Expectations3."
Many support this recommendation, many support present policies,
and many support a change in policy that would apply the same
standards to persons who are heterosexual or homosexual. As
the task force's report observes, "the disagreement over these
issues before the church is deep, pervasive, multi-faced, and
multi-layered."4 The point of
disagreement has been "ratcheted up" into a critical dimension of
the church's teaching.5
[5] The testing is not principally about whether people will be
civil and respectful in debating the issues in their congregations
or in the Churchwide Assembly, although this is important.
The testing has to do with "the church as community," that is,
whether or not the communal presuppositions are present for moral
deliberation on these issues. Do we as a church body have
enough in common concerning what the church should teach about
marriage, male and female, and the normative nature of and context
for sexual conduct to carry on faithful, meaningful, and
constructive deliberation on policy matters? Or are our
differences so deep on these critical dimensions of our faith and
life that we do not share common teaching to guide our
decisions? Does a lack of "consensus" on these matters mean
we have reached a stalemate and are unable to appeal to any
normative teaching?6
[6] The first recommendation from both the task force and the
Church Council addresses the concern of all for the unity of the
ELCA. The Church Council recommendation urges all "to
concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the
midst of disagreements, recognizing the God-given mission and
communion that we share as members of the body of Christ."
The Churchwide Assembly will undoubtedly hear numerous calls for
unity. The admonition to live out our unity in Christ is
always proper and necessary.
[7] One may wonder, however, if this recommendation is so
open-ended that it commits people who support it to live together
no matter what the Churchwide Assembly decides. Popes and
church councils do err, we have heard from a reputable
source. "To concentrate on finding ways to live together
faithfully" requires that we first know and accept the
character and boundaries of faithfulness. In other
words we must turn to the church's teachings to find a standard of
evaluation. Otherwise, "faithfully" becomes an empty
word. Within the bounds of faithfulness, there is room for
conscientious disagreement and difference.
[8] In his seminal essay "The Church: A Community of Moral
Discourse" of over 40 years ago (which was one source for ELCA's
"community of moral deliberation"), the Christian ethicist James
Gustafson underscored that moral discourse requires a community
with a moral tradition to provide accepted norms. In such a
community people gather to discuss their responsibilities "in
the light of moral convictions about which there is some consensus
and to which there is some loyalty." 7 In distinguishing the
moral intention of this discourse from a therapeutic intention,
Gustafson writes:
In moral discourse there are
some objective convictions about the nature of the right and the
good that are not identified with the existing subjective feelings
of people involved; there is a body of conviction or doctrine in
the light of which judgments can be made that is acknowledged to be
worthy of loyalty whether this body of conviction is internalized
or not. In moral discourse we are not particularly concerned
about whether the participant has some feeling of self-fulfillment,
some new sense of well-being in the psyche or the soul. We
are concerned with the direction of human activity in the light of
an understanding of what is right and wrong, what is better and
worse.8
He adds that in the Christian community moral discourse takes
place in light of Scripture. The Bible "is confessionally an
authoritative locus of consensus about what the shape and purposes
of life in relation to God and to man ought to be."9
[9] Gustafson's description of moral discourse holds also for
the ELCA with its scriptural and confessional
commitments.10 Not all talk
about important issues is moral deliberation; such talk must seek
to bring the church's normative teaching to bear on particular
issues. Moral deliberation is not non-judgmental; judgments
are made about what is right, good, and in conformity with God's
will. Not all views are equally valid; not all are biblical
and confessional. Nor can all positions necessarily be
reconciled. Moral discourse structured by communally accepted
"objective convictions" is the controlling factor in moral
deliberation, not personal experiences or individual
consciences.
[10] Journey Together Faithfully II along with the
reports from the task force and the Church Council describe
opposing positions concerning "these issues before the church" but
do not evaluate them on the basis of a normative teaching.
What Dennis Bielfeldt wrote about Journey Together Faithfully
II holds also for the subsequent reports and
recommendations:
Although they [readers] are told that they are journeying
together in moral deliberation, they are not provided a basic
toolbox of what constitutes such deliberation….
[T]heological categories are not highlighted or developed in such a
way as to acquire any normative status in adjudication
process. Finally, there is little in the document that
displays reverence for the tradition, little that suggests that
because the tradition itself serves as a datum of theological
judgment, prima facie justification must be afforded normative
positions within it. In summary, those who study Journey
Together will likely be introduced to different options and
learn the one or two sentence explanation of each, but not really
learn how one might begin to evaluate from among these
options.11
[11] In support of its recommendation on exceptions, the Church
Council's report makes primary the church's need to "'live
together' in this time of tension and disagreement on
homosexuality." It does not set out the church's received
normative teaching on sexuality and marriage or present a new
teaching and then show how that teaching provides the basis for its
recommended policy change. Instead the report presents two
opposing positions on homosexuality as if both were accepted
normative teachings of our church. What has historically been
considered the church's teaching on these matters now appears as
one of two strongly-held opinions. The report then provides
some reasons for why each position can accept its
recommendation.12 The message is
that both sides can accommodate the compromise of exceptions and
therefore live together. The resulting impression is that the
recommendation feels more like a management decision to keep an
organization together than a policy decision of a church acting on
the basis of its teachings.
[12] Wise management of a complex organization like the ELCA is
of course necessary but it is secondary to our calling as a church
to say with clarity and conviction: "This is what we teach about
this critical dimension of faith and life."
[13] Shortly after the Church Council had acted on its
recommendations, I received a phone call from an ELCA member who
was puzzled by what he had read about the action. He could
not understand how a church that considered homosexual behavior a
sin could also ordain practicing gays and lesbians. It seemed
to him like a contradiction. I could explain to him that
there is disagreement in our church on how to understand homosexual
behavior and suggest that the Church Council was concerned about
our church's mission in diverse settings. I could not,
however, provide a cogent argument on the basis of the received
church's teachings on sex, love, and marriage to support the
action.
[14] Perhaps that argument can be made. If so, that should
be a necessary condition for the Churchwide Assembly's adoption of
a policy of exceptions. Churchwide Assemblies have a
responsibility to teach.
[15] This is a time for testing for the ELCA--also as a
community of moral deliberation. What is our church's
teaching on marriage and sexuality? What is the "body of
conviction or doctrine in the light of which judgments can be made"
on "the issues before the church?" Could it be that we are not able
to handle these questions?
© August
2005
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 5, Issue 8
1 The first mention of "the church as a community of moral
deliberation" came in "Social Statements of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America," which was adopted by the first
Churchwide Assembly in 1989. Most of that document was incorporated
in the revised "Policies and Procedures of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America for Addressing Social Concerns," which was
adopted by the Church Council and affirmed by the 1997 Churchwide
Assembly. The reference to "community of moral deliberation" is
found on page 12. In the ELCA's first social statement, "The Church
in Society: A Lutheran Perspective," adopted by the Churchwide
Assembly in 1991, this idea became a major thread of the social
statement (pages 5-6; 7-8). Both documents are online (www.elca.org/socialstatements).
2 See Talking Together as Christians about Tough Social
Issues (Division for Church in Society, 1999) and Talking Together
as Christians Cross-culturally, by Ronald W. Duty (ELCA, 2004). The
first publication is online at
http://www.elca.org/ethics/pdf/Talking_Together_as_Christians_mr.pdf
and the second at
http://www.elca.org/ethics/pdf/tt_christians_cross_culturally.pdf.
3 2005 Pre-Assembly Report: ELCA Studies on Sexuality,
Section IV, page 23. The Church Council's and the task force's
reports are online (www.elca.org/faithfuljourney).
It should be noted that the task force's recommendation differed
from the one from the Church Council. After stating "that the
biblical-theological case for wholesale change in this church's
current standards has not been made to the satisfaction of the
majority of participants in the study," the report says,
"Therefore, our recommendations do not involve new policy or
changes to existing policy" (page 10). The task force did not
recommend a policy of exceptions but called for the option to
refrain from disciplining those involved in calling or approving
partnered gay or lesbian candidates to the rostered ministry.
4 Task force report, page 5.
5 I use the term "critical dimension" to signal the
importance of sexuality, marriage, and love in human life and the
crucial significance of the church's calling to be faithful
biblically and confessionally in its teaching, preaching, and
pastoral ministry on these matters. The term takes no stand on
what, if anything, in these matters may be church-dividing. It
does, however, connote the idea that when the church's teachings on
such vital matters are faithful, they are also coherent and do not
settle for contradictory ideas.
6 The task force report states that "While the responses
to the study show a majority in favor of present practices and
standards, there is, however, neither a consensus-a general
agreement-nor any emerging consensus on these practices and
standards" (page 10). Assuming this claim is accurate and that it
applies to the church's teaching as well, what does "consensus"
mean for determining the truth of the church's teaching? What
theological weight should be given to the notion of "consensus"? In
the history of the church the concept of "the sense of the
faithful" (sensus fidelium) has been used to support the church's
teachings. This sense refers to believers in the universal church
from its beginning. Further discussion of the significance given
"consensus" in the ELCA would need to be done in relation to the
concept of "the sense of the faithful" in the universal church.
7 The Church As Moral Decision-Maker (Philadephia: Pilgrim
Press, 1970), page 84. Italics are in the original. The essay
referred to in the article was first published in 1964.
8 Ibid., page 86.
9 Ibid., page 87. Gustafson rejects the idea the moral
insight is to be found only in the Bible.
10 This can be seen, for example, in "Policies and
Procedures of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for
Addressing Social Concerns." In describing "Guiding Perspectives
for Social Statements," the first perspective is that "social
statements are theological documents," where it is stated that
social statements are subject to the testing of whether they are
faithful to Scriptures and to the church's creeds and confessions.
"They themselves are not new creeds or confessions." The second
perspective is that "social statements are teaching documents."
Only in the third perspective-"social statements involve this
church in the ongoing task of theological ethics"-does it state
that "they [social statements] depend on a vision of the Church as
a community of moral deliberation in which serious communication on
matters of society and faith is vital to its being." Pages
10-12.
11 "Journeying Together and Faithfully?" Journal of
Lutheran Ethics, Volume 3, Issue 12 (December 2003), paragraphs 11
and 12.
12 Pages 22-23. One can of course ask if the presentation
of the two positions is fair and if the arguments are valid.