These days one would like to be in a position to ignore what happens in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but as it is one of the three largest church bodies in the world that bear the name Lutheran, that is a luxury we do not have. The following is part of a reflection by a noted theologian of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, David Yeago, on the future of that church body following several decisions of its recent Assembly in Minneapolis which amount to a rejection of the scriptural and traditional teaching on homosexuality. This is probably the best response I have read to date on this matter because, in my view, it correctly diagnoses what's wrong with the ELCA (and most other mainstream Christian church bodies in the Western world, for that matter), and that is the disintegrating sensus fidelium, which literally translates as "sense of the faith" and refers to a commonly held understanding of the objective content of the faith among the people. This is happening as a result of the truly terrifying reality that much of the church is no longer living in and from scripture but being blown this way and that by the chill winds of post-modern relativism and subjectivism. Much more could be said about the ELCA and particularly its flirting with methods of Biblical interpretation that undermined the authority of God's Word and hastened the present situation. Once the hermeneutical genie has escaped the bottle, is there a way to put him back? The following recommendations from Yeago are the best, in fact the only place to start.
From The Way Forward (3): The Bible in the Church, by David S. Yeago:
"According to the Formula of Concord, the “Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments” are “the pure clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm by which all teachers and teaching are to be judged” (Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm). Our attention easily locks onto the description of Scripture as the “only true norm” in doctrinal controversy. That’s the contested Protestant bit, the “Scripture-principle.” It’s been endlessly discussed since the Reformation, and entered deeply into Protestant identity.
It has also been viewed with increasing skepticism since the Enlightenment, not without reason. It just doesn’t seem to have worked out very well. Conflicts don’t actually seem to be resolved by biblical interpretation in the Protestant churches; controversies seem more likely to generate schism or else the formation of ongoing opposed parties within ecclesiastical communities. Hasn’t any unity Protestants have enjoyed really been brought about by state-church regimes or capacious denominational structures, rather than a meeting of the minds over Scripture?
Notice, though, that the Formula does not present Scripture only as a norm to be appealed to in controversy. Before Scripture is norm, it is the “pure, clear fountain of Israel,” the source of the water of life. A fountain is different from a norm; its work is prior to any outbreak of controversy, any pressing need for judgment. A fountain gives life and provides cleansing. Its waters sustain travelers, clear dust from human eyes, and turn deserts into fruitful fields. Unless the church is constantly being enlivened and formed by Scripture in this way, appeals to the Bible as norm and judge will be operating in a vacuum.
No method of resolving disputes within the church can function without the support of an underlying sensus fidelium, a common mind among the faithful. Even a teaching office on Roman Catholic lines can only settle disputes successfully if there is a shared perception that the office deserves respect. This can never be wholly a matter of recognizing the formal authority of the bishop or the Pope, as in the slogan “Rome has spoken – case closed.” It has to include a perception that the actual decisions made by the teaching office reliably cohere with central Christian beliefs and practices. Only so can a sense be maintained that obedience to the teaching office is an authentic form of discipleship. But for that to be the case, the teachers and the faithful must share a common formation in faith and life. They can only meet, so to speak, if they live in the same Christian universe.
The root of our problems with authority in the ELCA, I would suggest, is the confusion, weakening, and consequent fragmentation of the sensus fidelium, the common mind of the faithful. This confusion and weakness are by no means all on one side. We’ve all been affected by the biblical illiteracy, thin catechesis, clueless educational programs, and unfocused preaching that are widespread (I’m not saying universal) in our denomination. Seeking scriptural resolution to a passionate controversy on top of such weakness, confusion, and fragmentation is like trying to ride up the glass mountain in the fairy tale: no matter how strong your theological horse or how well you ride it, you’re never going to get traction.
This is one reason I’ve been suggesting that the way forward has to be a renewed formative engagement with Scripture as pure, clear fountain. We need to set the Bible loose in the ELCA; we need to uncap the hydrant and let the waters pour where they will. We need to do this not defensively, nor simply in a new round of argument about sexual ethics, but with the air of people discovering treasure in a field. The new mantra in the ELCA is that our unity is in Christ, not in theology or moral teaching. A confused mantra – but why not respond: “Good – then let’s go looking for him. Let’s dig up the field of the Scriptures to find him.”
I heard a couple of words in church last Sunday that encouraged me: “The word of God is living and active” (Heb 4:12) and “With human beings it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God” (Mk 10:27). When we let the Bible loose, we don’t really know what’s going to happen next. But it’s not just our own power we have to reckon with. And we’ve just about run out of other things to try."
Addendum: If you've read this far, you might also enjoy reading another interesting recent reflection on the marginalisation of scripture in the church from another quarter entirely, namely Robert Forsythe, an Anglican Bishop in Sydney, Australia, which for overseas readers not familiar with our Australian church scene, is a bastion of conservative evangelicalism which lives in some tension with what passes for mainstream Anglicanism these days. You can read it here: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/the_marginalisation_of_scripture/