Death throes or birth pangs? (Sunday Reflections for April 11, 2010)

For years The Lutheran has been the country’s largest circulation denominational magazine. It may still hold that rank but, if so, today it is in a much smaller field. Print media in general is in decline and then being tied to declining institutions is a double whammy. In recent years several church magazines have closed (some replaced by online versions) as have some non-denominational religious journals.

Circulation for The Lutheran has certainly dropped. One thing that used to keep it up was the congregational subscription plan whereby churches, at reduced cost, could subscribe for all their member households. Many churches have dropped these to save money and most were not replaced by individual subscriptions.

As with the church in general, The Lutheran has had trouble figuring out its purpose or identity. Early in the ELCA’s life it was reporting regularly on the denomination’s struggles to get going. Many synodical bishops criticized all the “negative press” implying the magazine was somehow being disloyal. The message got through and ELCA news was reduced while more articles were devoted to congregational and personal life issues.

The result was a magazine that became increasingly bland and repetitive. I’ve heard it described as a Lutheran Guideposts or even Readers Digest. Many clergy I know say the only things they look at are the obituaries. The one section most often criticized is the Letters to the Editor. Ironically as the articles became “happier” these letters became angrier, sometimes vitriolic. Given the selection that was printed I can only imagine the tone of those left out.

According to Editor Daniel Lehmann, the current April issue has a “Cover story full of risks.” In his editorial he acknowledges that for the past four years The Lutheran “tamped down” its coverage of the ongoing debate over gay clergy. Supposedly ending that embargo, this issue’s feature story reports the fallout to date over last summer’s Churchwide Assembly actions. To avoid any appearance of bias, the magazine contracted the story out to Lutheran Chicago Sun-Times reporter Sandra Guy.

Lehmann needn’t have worried. In his editorial he says that past reporting was “straightforward news” of “official actions” limited mostly to “he said, she said” accounts. For whatever reason, this almost exactly describes this issue’s story. Guy provides almost no personal analysis but rather strings together dozens of quotations of lay members, pastors and bishops. The views of proponents of the assembly action, opponents, as well as those on the fence are all reported.

The article has nothing surprising to report. Many are happy, many are sad and/or angry, and many are unsure what to make of the acceptance of gay clergy. A few congregations have voted to leave the ELCA and more may follow but thus far the numbers do not look significant. Contributions are down but the biggest cause for that may be the recession. Opposition is strongest in small town and rural congregations, especially those which were formerly ALC. Support is strongest in synods with predominantly urban and suburban memberships.

Much more interesting is Guy’s article which follows the cover story, based primarily on an interview with ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. Basically Hanson says the church needs to move on: “I’m patient with the process of decision-making, but I’m not putting ministry and mission on pause in the meantime.” While last year’s assembly action is still important to process, Hanson says there are bigger issues which the ELCA has been confronting long before this:

The changes of our demographics didn't begin with the Churchwide Assembly. We have been becoming a smaller church body in membership, increasingly older than the U.S. population, and a predominantly white denomination in an increasingly multiethnic and multicultural world. So in the larger context, what does it mean to be faithful, evangelical Lutherans in this changing context? Those questions will continue to be foremost.

While Hanson’s analysis is largely accurate it is also somewhat disingenuous. Many would argue that the decision to allow gay clergy was exactly the kind of step the church needs to make to be more relevant and connected to the contemporary world. The problem, of course, is that a lot of people don’t want to make that connection. What would it mean for the ELCA to draw in new, younger, more ethnically diverse members? How could it not mean making the ELCA a dramatically different church which very likely would alienate many of its current members?

This, of course, is exactly the dilemma faced by countless congregations of all Christian stripes, even those thought to have figured out how to be “relevant.” For years the Crystal Cathedral was seen as a model of a new way to do church. Started by Robert Schuler in the 1950s, his new essentially non-denominational church reached out to the young post-war families pouring into southern California. His stunning glass church seated thousands and came into the homes of millions more through its TV ministry.

It is now reported that the Crystal Cathedral is $55 million in debt, has a list of unpaid vendors as long as your arm, and was forced to cancel both its epic Christmas and Easter holiday shows (the Christmas show would have been its 30th anniversary). The church has been unable to find a successor for the now elderly Schuler. His son was kicked out as the church’s new pastor when his leadership was deemed inadequate. Yet this is surely a symptom of the larger question of what direction to take the church now that the demographic it appealed to originally has largely disappeared. What if the new people really don’t like all that glass?

Prior to the ELCA’s formation, and when he was still a skeptic of the proposal, the ALC’s last Bishop David Preus said Lutheranism’s biggest challenge was that “the boats have stopped coming.” By that he meant the biggest source of new American Lutherans had been immigration, and that was now over. Thirty years later American Lutheranism still has not figured out how to create a new identity and purpose for itself.

As much upheaval as last summer’s assembly action caused it may be only a start. If Lutheranism is going to have a future it may take many more such changes for the church to transform itself into something relevant and appealing to contemporary people. In other words, to quote Jesus (and only somewhat out of context), this may be only the beginning of the birth pangs. Whether the church has the commitment, energy, and the stomach for more such wrenching course changes only time will tell. Given how rapidly and dramatically our culture is changing, however, time may not be something we have much of.

We need to talk

In his recent online “town hall meeting,” ELCA Bishop Hanson repeated a plea he has been making since the churchwide assembly last August (CWA09). He has been asking those upset with the decision to liberalize the church’s stance on homosexuality and gay clergy to remain with the denomination and “be in conversation” with the rest of the church. In short: “Please don’t leave. Let’s talk.”

While Hanson’s invitation is gracious and understandable, I wonder what he thinks there is to talk about. In the last few months I have occasionally checked in with some of the conservative Lutheran websites and blogs. Frankly, what I hear in such places is nearly a foreign language.

I posted earlier about a north suburban Chicago congregation newsletter column by ELCA Pastor Terry Breum. His list of beliefs which he feels are challenged today in the ELCA was stunning. If I met him I would be tempted to ask, “What rock have you been living under?” His credo seemed a bit conservative even for the LCMS but would make most any fundamentalist happy. It’s hard to imagine how he and I are pastors in the same denomination.

Pastor Breum may be an extreme example, but the conversations I have seen on other web sites reveal a deep and wide chasm within the ELCA. Bishop Hanson and other ELCA leaders following his line are wrong in believing this is simply or even primarily about acceptance of homosexuality and gay clergy. What the actions of CWA09 did was to reveal fundamental differences over theology and mission within the ELCA.

Bishop Hanson has expressed concern that this dispute is diverting ELCA energy and resources from its mission. The assumption here is that mission is something which unites us but that’s wishful thinking. Take this simple example: Is it our mission to save sinners from hell? It is for Pastor Breum but it certainly isn’t for me. According to Pastor Bruem, universalism (“taught in many seminaries” he says as an aside) is one of the ELCA’s many heretical defects. Are he and I really in agreement on the church’s mission? I can’t imagine how we could be.

What then is our “mission” in starting new congregations? Suppose some young protégé of Pastor Breum, fired up for mission, wants to be a mission developer. Would I want such a person starting a new ELCA congregation or my congregation’s mission support paying for such a project? Heavens no. Would he want a protégé of mine starting a new ELCA congregation? I seriously doubt that would be the case either.

As I wrote before, what is disingenuous about the protests of Pastor Breum and others is the implication that all this heresy appeared just recently. Where have they been? While homosexuality was perhaps just becoming a public conversation topic, when I was in seminary over twenty-five years ago all these “heretical” topics were openly discussed and often affirmed by both professors and students. And many of the texts we read on these topics had been around for some time.

Unfortunately the opportunity for conversation is probably long past. Theological divisions within the ELCA are not new; they’ve been there from the start. For whatever reason, the desire to unite American Lutheranism (or come as close as possible) led to an unspoken agreement to avoid divisive topics and “accent the positive” of what presumably united everyone. Much of that unity was expressed in jargon that was sufficiently vague (like “mission”) so people could interpret it however they wanted to. Had those conversations taken place, they almost certainly would have delayed an already stumbling merger process and may well have stopped it altogether.

To some extent, the practice of avoiding divisive theological issues had been that of the ELCA’s predecessor churches as well. Did it work because those churches were more ethnically homogenous or because they were smaller? Or have the times changed? This is certainly a more polarized period, politically and ideologically. I suspect all these are factors and no doubt there are others. In any case, the notion of respecting each other’s “bound conscience” and agreeing to disagree doesn’t seem to have much of a future.

Recently, the ELCA’s two former presiding bishops, Herb Chilstrom and H. George Anderson, issued a joint appeal to rally moral and financial support for the embattled denomination. They both see their earlier hard work bringing about the ELCA in danger. They’re convinced the ELCA is worth saving and has important work to do:

Our troubled world needs the Good News of the Gospel and all that flows from it. Our differences must not divide us at a time like this. We are absolutely certain that we can continue to live together and serve as one family in the ELCA.

Sincere and well meaning, theirs are nonetheless voices of an older generation and a time in the church’s life that is rapidly passing. The gospel which they see uniting the church is actually the very subject of its division. A conversation among representative leaders about the meaning of that “good news” would be very interesting indeed but would likely also lead to the realization that the ELCA stopped being “one family” some time ago (if it ever was).

In the present instance, one side sees the good news to be a spiritual healing of our community division over differing sexual orientations and a welcome to those formally ostracized. Another sees the good news as a message of forgiveness for sinful behavior and the availability of a charism enabling sinners to resist the temptation at the heart of their disordered personality. Trying bringing that together in an evangelism brochure!

There will be need for conversation but not between the antagonists in the ELCA’s current squabble. That train’s left the station and it’s not coming back. By this time next year, however, the dust will have settled and there should be a fairly clear picture of the ELCA’s composition going forward. It is this remnant that needs to talk to each other and develop a coherent and meaningful message and mission for the church.

It’s obvious from the dramatic cultural changes happening today that the nature of the church is going to be very different in the years to come. Because of the ELCA’s theological “diversity,” its attempts to respond thus far have been little more than flailing. Those remaining in the future ELCA, however, should have sufficient common ground for a real and productive conversation about what is the “good news” for 21st century America. Then from there a conversation can begin about what the church ought to be doing to make that gospel known.

Bishop Hanson's in the hall

I finally got to watch Bishop Hanson’s online “town hall meeting” (I was on the road last Sunday when it was aired). I hesitated whether to write anything about it at all. One reason I am is Hanson’s closing statement that he intends to do this again. I really hope he doesn’t.

It was a strange hour. First, it was yet another attempt by the church to look like it’s in the big leagues, only to fall embarrassingly short. The setting in the recently vacated Augsburg Fortress retail space appeared as makeshift as it obviously was. Carlos Pena role as “the questioner” was artificial and inappropriate. I’m sorry but I couldn’t help thinking that his dentures were loose—wrong person for the wrong job.

With his audience on three sides and Pena popping up with questions from behind him, Hanson looked like a whirling Dervish trying to figure out where to look. Hanson and Pena’s sound levels were significantly different so, listening with earphones, I had to keep raising and lowering the volume as they each spoke. The live audience apparently was all from the Chicago area (I recognized about half of them) so could hardly be said to be representative of the ELCA. I don’t know how they or the questions submitted online were selected.

Hanson was weirdly energized, like he had had too much caffeine. He seemed to be enjoying himself but also seemed to be trying to look like he was enjoying himself. The whole question and answer exchange came off as staged. Hanson launched into his response to each question almost instantly, as if he knew the questions in advance and already had his answers planned. I don’t think he did and it probably was just a result of his “adrenaline rush.” As a result, though, he didn’t appear to think or reflect at all before he spoke so his immediate talking sometimes seemed to be just words. Not surprisingly, he was prone to ramble.

As I listened to Hanson’s responses I had much the same reaction as I had to his video message a few weeks ago. Obviously a primary goal of this media push is to try to counter the negative talk following this summer’s churchwide assembly (CWA09) and to refocus attention on positive aspects of the church’s ministry. Unlike his previous message, the questions forced Hanson to deal more directly with the ELCA’s problems. Nonetheless, he continued his “happy talk,” though it was no more convincing this time than it was before.

Actually, many of his responses were disingenuous or wildly unrealistic, and the continuous effort to put a positive spin on the ELCA’s problems sometimes was just silly. He described the recent staff cuts as “cutting to the marrow of the bone the priorities of this church.” In the next breath, however, he insisted they did not diminish the church’s commitment to racial justice or ethnic ministries (the specific subject of the question) or that the church was changing its priorities.

I couldn’t help but think of [ELCA executive for administration] Wyvetta Bullock’s refreshingly frank statement after the staff cuts were announced: “We will being doing less with less.” Hanson’s inconsistent bemoaning of the ELCA cuts and insistence that everything will go on as before diminishes his credibility and hardly makes him appear serious about dealing with this crisis.

The questions from the Chicago audience were mostly softballs, or they at least were tolerant of Hanson’s softball answers. Everyone nodded, chuckled and smiled. Several of the submitted questions were more pointed, however, mostly dealing with the sexuality social statement and revised gay clergy policy adopted by CWA09. In response to these, Hanson’s mantra was to urge all sides to remain together in conversation. Yet, apart from the August assembly itself, he cited no examples where this was happening and, as he returned to this theme repeatedly during the hour, it became harder to imagine how it would occur.

Holding the ELCA together is obviously a primary concern for Hanson, but he didn’t make a very convincing case for it. While he insisted the ELCA will be “diminished” by the loss of opponents of the assembly action he seemed unable to articulate why this would be a bad thing. Frankly, it was reminiscent of the vague explanations given for forming the ELCA in the first place. It seems we’re still trying to sell “bigger is better.”

The “big tent” ecclesiology Hanson espoused just isn’t convincing or even imaginable. Responding to someone opposed to the new ministry policy, Hanson insisted the questioner loved the Bible just as he did. But do they love it in the same way? As I listened to his description of the “evangelical Lutheran” way of reading the Bible I knew there would be listeners squirming, or worse. His approach is one I’m comfortable with but I know it drives conservatives crazy.

Hanson tried to use various historical examples to support his notion that differing viewpoints can coexist in the same church but none of them worked. He cited the presence of Jewish and gentile Christians in the early church, yet history shows that the Jewish wing became the increasingly sectarian Ebionites which eventually faded away. Hanson quotes Paul’s “many parts, one body” theology but Paul was referring to different gifts and abilities, not differing opinions and beliefs. Using a more contemporary example, Hanson gave the example of differing Christian attitudes toward war. Yet where do significant pro-military versus pacifist factions exist together, except perhaps in Roman Catholicism?

The biggest challenge the ELCA faces, according to Hanson, is for the distraction over sexuality to result in loss of focus on mission. Can the two be so easily separated though? He welcomed a questioner’s report of people returning to church after the assembly actions and urged opponents to see the possibility of people coming to Christ this way. But how could they cheer such news if they think this is the result of a delusion?

For the first time I heard Hanson identify what I think is the crux of the church’s division over homosexuality. An online questioner asked how the church could endorse something the Bible clearly condemns. His wordy and circuitous answer finally got around to saying that the modern understanding of homosexuality is not in the Bible. Hanson couldn’t bring himself to complete the thought, however, to simply say and therefore the Bible is wrong.

As with Hanson’s open letter last month, I was left wondering who the intended audience was for this event. I can’t imagine that opponents of the sexuality decisions were persuaded by anything Hanson said. To me it seems that this is about creating the meme about those who are or will be leaving the ELCA: “We reached out to them but they wouldn’t talk. What more could we do?” Rather than simply acknowledging there is a sincere difference of opinion, for which there is no institutional compromise, conservatives will be labeled as stubborn and unreasonable. I’m sure this will go well.

The bishop tries happy talk

Where does the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) stand today? We stand together in God's grace, but we are not standing still. We proclaim Jesus Christ and are fully engaged in this mission by actively caring for the world that God loves. God's mission is serious work that calls for serious commitment. We bring all that we are -- especially our rich diversity, our shared tradition and even our disagreements -- in service of God's mission.

(“An Open Letter to ELCA Members” from Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, November 20, 2009)

The ELCA today released a letter from Bishop Mark Hanson, along with an accompanying video (its content was similar but not identical to the letter). Take a look at the opening paragraph above. Reading it reminds me of that refrigerator magnet toy which allows you to arrange words into profound poetry or nonsensical gibberish, however you feel moved. The words and grammar make sense but together the paragraph says—nothing. It imitates the kind of political and bureaucratic verbiage we see and hear all the time, only a small dose of which is necessary to put us to sleep.

Obviously the release of the letter and video is an attempt to balance the “negative energy” surrounding last week’s mass layoffs at the ELCA churchwide office, stories of withheld mission support and departing congregations, and the CORE announcement that it would be forming a new Lutheran denomination. All of that, however, is barely acknowledged in the letter itself.

As so often happens with institutions in trouble, the assumption is made that the real problem is public perception. All we have to do is manage the news cycle. We’ll drown out the bad news by shouting good news even louder. Unfortunately in the church such PR campaigns are too obvious and serve only to deplete energy rather than build it up. In this regard the video is even worse than the letter, since meaningless words are combined with the Bishop’s robotic happy talk.

I don’t know what such cheerleading is supposed to accomplish. The limited distribution of these pieces means they go primarily to people well aware of the denomination’s difficulties. For these folks many of the items of good news Hanson highlights ironically only raise more questions:

• Why is a Florida congregation planning regional mission strategy rather than the ELCA or synod? (If they can do it, what do we need churchwide structures for?)
• Why are we starting more ministries in poor minority communities when so many previous multicultural mission starts are struggling or closing?
• The ELCA will “raise up leaders” by supporting its seminaries but won’t acknowledge the financial crisis of many current pastors, that it simply can’t sustain eight independent seminaries, or that it is not at all clear that the full-time pastor with an expensive graduate education is a model that will work in the future.

“Honesty is the best policy” we were told as children. It works even better with adults. The ELCA has serious problems and its membership is mature enough to handle a serious discussion of them. They don’t need to be cheered up. They just need the truth. (I think that's in the Bible somewhere.)

Follow up: blogger and religion journalist Susan Hogan has similar concerns: Bishop Hanson, ELCA need new PR