[1] We now know the recommendations of the task force for ELCA
Studies on Sexuality: Retain "Vision and Expectations," but
enforce it using "pastoral discretion." This presents a
problem: What criteria should we use to adjudicate
enforcement? It would be decidedly un-Lutheran
("enthusiastic") to locate such discretion in the immediate
activity of the Holy Spirit. But in the absence of clear
criteria, how can we avoid caprice?
[2] As we ponder what happens next for the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America (ELCA), we should reflect upon the process.
How did the ELCA get here? What assumptions about
the nature of church have been at work?
[3] Since its inception the ELCA has attempted to amalgamate two
strikingly different images about the nature of itself as
"church." The ontological approach understands the
ELCA as itself a "thing," a real, ecclesiastical entity having
being beyond and through its congregations; the functional
view supposes it to be a transcongregational set of administrative
functions and relations defined upon the set of its existing
congregations. I believe that the recommendations of the Task
Force clearly favor the former understanding over the
latter.
[4] According to its constitution, the "church" known as the
ELCA exists in three expressions: churchwide, synodical, and
congregational. This structure clearly privileges an
ontological understanding of church as an organic visible
institution that is church in and through its various activities,
e.g., theological reflection, missional outreach, and
social/political activism. On this ontological understanding,
the task force's charge was clearly to recommend (as church, on
behalf of the church, and to the church) a policy and theological
rationale that, if adopted at the Churchwide Assembly, would become
the policy and teaching of the
"church."
[5] The ELCA establishes social teaching in a very different
manner than the Roman Catholic Church does. The visible,
organic Roman Catholic Church has historically been clear about its
ontology. It has assumed that it itself is an entity with
teachings that cannot be left to popular vote. Because
nonexperts lack the requisite background and skills to adjudicate
issues theologically, they cannot speak for the
church. (Physics is not done by popular
vote.)
[6] The ELCA structure, on the other hand, because of its
ontological ambiguity, allows a vote of 1,000 of its members at
Churchwide Assembly to overturn an understanding of sexual
impropriety traditionally assumed to be grounded in Scripture and
moral theology. Accordingly, the ELCA institutional
structure permits the "church" to witness to, and teach views
antithetical to those that might deeply bind, upon Scriptural and
confessional grounds, a sizeable number (majority?) of its
members
[7] What, however, is the being of "church" that allows
the ELCA to adopt and hold views not consonant with its
members? Where comes the authority for changing
traditional teachings on human sexuality if that authority is
neither grounded in canonical moral teaching (not an option for
Lutherans), nor Scripture and confession (it's unclear that they
allow for change), nor a democratic vote of all ELCA members (it's
unclear that the majority favors
change)?
[8] In contrast to the ontological construal, the
functional understanding of the institutional church
assumes that the church is principally "an association of faith and
Holy Spirit in the hearts of persons" (Apology, Art.
VII). Accordingly, since this hidden church is
exhibited most clearly around Word and Sacrament, the congregation
has ecclesiastical priority. Synodical and Churchwide
assemblies exist to coordinate missional activities of
congregations, to speak on behalf of congregations, and to
facilitate the calling of pastors by congregations. On this
understanding, neither the task force is "church," nor the
institution that votes upon its recommendations. While
democratic vote can rightfully establish the parameters and
practices of transcongregational functionality, it cannot establish
what the church qua church believes, teaches, and confesses.
[9] Confusion about the ontology of church clouds the ELCA
understanding of the status of the Task Force
recommendations and the use to which they are put. Is the
Task Force report in any way normative on issues of faith
and practice? While not normative from the functional
perspective, the report seemingly acquires normativity on the
ontological view, for the "church" did commission it and shall
receive it. Accordingly, the report is not regarded simply as
a collection of reasoned opinions of select Lutherans, but rather
as having presumptive theological integrity as a document of the
church.
[10] It is illuminating to compare the task force report to the
last major divisive issue in the ELCA: the adoption of the historic
episcopate. The ontologists could not brook the possibility
of any "pastoral discretion" in enforcing CCM, for to do so would
repudiate their fundamental ecclesiological assumptions. On
the other hand, the functionalists realized that mandated,
institutionalized practice of the historic episcopate was
incompatible with their deepest suppositions about the nature of
church. The continuing controversy about the historic
episcopate remains, at its most profound level, a conflict about
what the church ultimately is.[1]
[11] Given the release of the Task Force recommendations, it is
appropriate to ask how the conflict in the "church" this might
produce can be mitigated. Has the task force any plan for
this? But this question presupposes a prior one:
Should the conflict be mitigated?
[12] On an ontological understanding of church,
unity is all-important, for without unity there is no
visible, organic unity, and thus no church. Accordingly, the
first recommendation of the task force report incorporates a plea
to stay together. ELCA bishops shall probably be dispatched
to quell rancor in the ranks, and pastoral ways shall be sought to
keep dissidents in the fold.
[13] On a functional understanding, however, such action is not
necessary. Because the transcongregational institution is not
a thing, but rather a set of functions aiding congregations in
getting the gospel preached in its purity and the sacrament rightly
administered, the institution can be changed when a situation
arises where its mission is clouded, made ambiguous, or
downplayed. While sentimentality attaches to historic
associations of congregations, such associations are not
"church." Clearly, institutional association among
congregations neither creates nor destroys the church. Should
open conflict arise among members, the proper thing for the
functionalist to do is to teach plainly that the national church is
not the church, that the synod is not the church, and that
the only meaningful church-division is local, that is, at the
congregational level.
[14] We have discussed two different understandings of
church. The ontological notion is essentially
conservative; it goes back to the beginning of
Christianity and flourished during the era of monarchy. It is
wholly compatible with the breathtakingly conservative notion of
the historic episcopate, and it can provide the requisite
ontological footing for new moral and social teachings.
[15] The functional notion is more liberal; it
gained ascendancy during the Reformation and it is decidedly
consonant with modern democratic institutions. It is
incompatible with the theology of the historic episcopate and
consistent with traditional moral and social teaching. (Since
the functional view never ontologized "church" into becoming a
source or norm for theological reflection, the sources and norms
for moral and social teaching remain outside it in Scripture and
its confession.)
[16] While I cannot argue it here, I believe that the
conservative, ontological view of church fits best within a context
of a theology of glory, while the liberal, functional view drives
toward a theology of the cross. Only an understanding of
church that makes of itself an important thing could presume to
reverse in practice historical teachings on human
sexuality, teachings that most of its church members believe are
normed by Scripture.
© January 2005
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 5, Issue 1
[1] The ontological understanding of
church prevails on both issues. While the ontologists can tolerate
no pastoral discretion on CCM without undermining their notion of
church, they must allow pastoral discretion on the sexuality issue
to preserve the "unity" entailed by that same notion of
church.