[1] "Lutherans in Public" focused on how Lutherans have been,
how they are or are not, and how they ought to be participants in
the public realm, both as a church and as individual members of
it. It was the theme of the 2006 Annual Gathering of Lutheran
Ethicists in Scottsdale, Arizona, in January of this
year. Presentations and discussion papers came at these
questions in a variety of ways, from general theological arguments
to particular examples to historical case studies. All of them
attempted to get at some aspect of what it means to be Lutherans in
public.
[2] The gathering featured eight discussion papers:
Some of these discussion papers are published in this issue of
JLE; others will be published in the summer, 2006, issue
of the journal, Dialog. In addition, the gathering
had the benefit of the insightful reflections of Ronald Thiemann,
who served as respondent on various papers and on the discussion at
the gathering as a whole.
[3] This essay attempts to discern and tease out threads from
the conversation at that gathering that revolved around these
discussion papers. An unstated question running through the
gathering was characteristically catechetical in a Lutheran sort of
way-"What does it mean for Lutherans to think, talk, decide, and
act in and for the public?" The gathering did not produce
anything approaching a formula of concord on the
subject. Instead of producing the declarative explanations of
Luther's catechisms, the participants wrestled with the questions
and with Lutheran theological and ecclesial tradition much like
Luther himself wrestled with scripture and church tradition on his
way to discerning the key insights about God's grace and the
theology of the cross. Before reaching whatever clarity we may
discern, Lutherans it seems must wrestle with scripture, with God,
with ourselves, and with each other-much like Jacob wrestled with
the angel-before receiving the blessings of spiritual, theological,
and ethical discernment. This is not a bad thing.
[4] Although it may make some people anxious for an easy clarity
or consensus, this catechetical question is apt to promote
lively-albeit messy-theological and ethical deliberation about
things that matter in Lutheran faith and life. The purpose of
reporting on threads from this conversation is so that the
discussion papers that appear below and the conversation itself
might have a wider audience and give rise to further
deliberation. These threads also suggest both avenues toward,
and a need for, future ethical work around the issues raised in the
papers and the discussion.
Notions of "Public"
[5] Participants saw the need to explore what was meant by "Public"
in discussions of Lutherans in public. There may be several
uses of this term, and it was not always easy to keep track of
various uses in the discussion of Lutherans in public. One
area where some precision about the use of the term, "public" was
deemed to be needed was its use in relation to views of the common
good. These two terms are not identical, it was noted, and the
relationship between various senses of "public" and "common good"
are complex. Some "mapping" of these relationships would be
helpful. In addition, participants wondered about the relation
between various notions of "public" and an understanding of
"political." The two terms are not always
synonymous. Moreover, use of "political" does not always imply
that the authority or power of government is involved.
Lutheran Theological Diversity about Public
Matters
[6] Along with the various senses of "public," "political," and
"common good" at play, Lutherans themselves take diverse approaches
to public matters. The group saw a need to examine one's own
positions with sufficient depth in the midst of this diversity, and
to be deliberate about the particularity out of which one makes
claims as a Lutheran about matters public, political, and the
common good.
Lutheran Unity amidst Diversity
[7] Participants also asked, what holds a plurality of diverse
Lutherans together when they differ on these
matters? Or, what is the significance of
being Lutheran? There may be a common language all Lutherans
use even when they do not agree about what that language or its
referents means. But that does not preclude some fundamental
partings of the way on key ethical and social questions. Is it
possible to identify a "core" of ideas, concepts, or commitments
that all Lutheran ethicists are likely to share?
How are Luther and the Lutheran Confessions related, and what is
their authority for ethics? How Lutheran ethicists "revise"
Luther was suggested as a topic for further conversation or another
gathering.
Being the Church in Public
[8] What is the nature of the church that acts publicly? Is
the church primarily an institution, or the people of God? A
description and evaluation of the public church will differ
depending upon which conception of the church is used. So will
the understanding of the church's exercise of power. When
considering the public church, what is the relation between the
"visible" and "invisible" church? Is the public church
necessarily a uniform body in its thinking and acting? Or is
it a unity that expresses a real public pluralism?
[9] What is the relation between the various expressions of the
public church? Is the public church primarily or always
congregational? Or do other expressions-such as
churchwide-also matter?
Formation for the Public
Church
[10] Participants raised several issues related to
formation. What does it mean to form Christians for loving the
neighbor in a public or political sense, for deliberating about
what will make for their well being or the common good, and for
using religious claims appropriately in public discourse? How
does the church go about forming Christians spiritually and morally
for participation in a church which attends to public matters
through moral deliberation as well as deciding and acting
together. How does the church organize itself to form public
Christians effectively? How does it pay for appropriate
resources and training? Does a primary emphasis on action
neglect spiritual and moral formation and the ability to practice
deliberation? When is it important in the public church to
focus on such concerns as individual or corporate
character? For that matter, how does the church form
not only individual Christians but also Christian communities for
public life?
[11] What should Christian individuals and communities be formed
for as a public church? Is it to
work for structural change on behalf of the poor? Is it for
the capacity to resist systemic evil? Is it to overcome the
blinders of our interests so that we may first recognize the evil
that must be resisted?
Determining the Church's Public Action
[12] What is the importance of exemplars-both individual and
corporate-in shaping the actions of both individuals and of
Christian communities? The moral authority of speaking and
acting publicly was noted. The example of Berggrav in
Yeager's
paper raises the question of what the public role of bishops should
be. In addition, how should the church decide what its public
action should be? What is the proper role of deep
introspection and moral deliberation out of the church's
theological and scriptural tradition? What is the range of
issues upon which the church can effectively speak and act
publicly? How should the interaction of congregational,
regional, and national expressions of the church affect what it
does publicly?
[13] What are the criteria by which the church decides and
evaluates its direct actions? How does it decide which of the
available means it should use? Must its direct action
necessarily be political? Might it not be either social or
economic instead? What distinguishes the church wielding worldly
power in service and in politics? Should one be preferred over
another?
Being Prophetic
[14] What does it mean for the public church to be "prophetic"
today? At one point a distinction was made between "clear
prophecy" and "fallible discernment." Does being prophetic
necessarily imply a kind of assured moral clarity? Is the
distinction between being prophetic and being discerning always
sharp?
[15] There has been a tendency in the U.S. to associate
prophetic points of view in the church with ideologies of the
left. Does this correlation necessarily hold? Is it
plausible to imagine that "prophetic" actions might also tend
toward actions which might be seen as conservative? In
addition to political approaches, might there also be economic
approaches to dealing with issues?
The Calling of the Citizen
[16] Heuser's paper stressed the idea of citizenship as a Christian
calling. What does it mean to be a "citizen' today? Can
we find the idea of "becoming a citizen" in Luther's
thought? How do we relate Luther's understanding of political
"orders" to Hannah Arendt's view of political action? Is there
a "Lutheran spin" on the idea of citizenship and on political
discourse generally? If there is a Christian calling to be a
citizen, how does the church work to form citizens?
Questions for Lutheran Ethics
[17] In his response to this discussion of Lutherans in public,
Ronald Thiemann proposed six sets of questions for Lutheran
ethicists to ponder:
[18] 1. What principles of hermeneutics
govern our interpretation of the Lutheran tradition? What
authority do we grant to Luther? To the Augsburg
Confession? To the Book of Concord? A vast array of
efforts to invoke Luther and the Lutheran tradition to authorize
theological and ethical proposals was evident in the papers for
this conference. Do we somehow need to "get Luther right?"
What critical principles do we employ to construct a "Luther within
Luther?"
[19] 2. How do we construe Lutheranism as a
theological and ethical tradition? Can we give a succinct
account of our conception of the Lutheran tradition? Are
Lutherans a movement of confession and reform within the church
catholic? If so, what are the implications for
ethics?
[20] 3. As Lutheran ethicists how do we relate
the so-called "zwei Reiche Lehre" to other fundamental Lutheran
emphases like justification by grace through faith for the sake of
Christ? The theology of the cross? How does the
distinction between law and gospel relate to the teaching of the
"two rules or kingdoms?" How do we understand the relation
between faith and works in constructing a public theology?
[21] 4. Do Lutherans have a distinctive
understanding of the political, social, and economic
realms? How do we make theological decisions concerning which
non-theological resources to use in our ethical work? Do we
share a common understanding of the notions of "public" and
"publicity?" To what extent are our views of "public" shaped
by our Lutheran convictions?
[22] 5. If we want the ELCA to become more of a
"public church" how do we understand theologically the notion of
"Church?" If church is fundamentally "the people of God
gathered around word and sacrament" how can we encourage
"publicness" in all aspects of the church's mission? How do we
engage the church's least-used resource, its educated laity, for
the purpose of "going public?"
[23] 6. What are the relationships among
spiritual devotion, moral deliberation, service to the neighbor,
political action, and political/economic advocacy? Which
public activities are most important to a church which seeks to
enhance its public outreach? Are some activities more
appropriate to the distinctive character of the Lutheran witness to
Christ?
© May 2006
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 6, Issue 5