Major changes are occurring in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). In the ongoing efforts at ecumenism, the debate centers on the ELCA's full communion agreement with the Episcopal Church that was ostensibly approved in August. The precise title of the agreement is "Called to Common Mission (CCM), " an earlier version of which had failed by six votes at the 1997 Lutheran Churchwide Assembly in Philadelphia. Ostensibly CCM calls for the two churches to recognize each other's members and clergy but maintain separate identities. It is not a full-fledged merger. In practical terms, though it means that ELCA pastors and Episcopal priests can preside over Holy Communion and other sacraments in respective churches and that there will be greater collaboration between the two churches on many levels. Why is this so controversial?

• Under the agreement, the ELCA would adopt the ancient practice of the "historic episcopate" that requires the presence of three bishops who had been consecrated by the laying on of hands of three bishops who had been consecrated by the laying on of hands by three bishops, etc., all the way back to the apostles (an unbroken chain of bishops going back to the original apostles). According to the agreement, this ancient practice would now be a condition for the installation of future ELCA bishops. It would also give ELCA bishops the exclusive authority to ordain clergy, a function they usually delegate now. The bottom line is that this new procedure will mark a significant shift in power from the local congregations to the bishops and thereby violate the Lutheran teaching, so strongly advocated by Martin Luther, of the priesthood of the believer. Not everyone agrees with this assessment of the "historic episcopate" but it certainly does seem to violate Luther's main point about the priesthood of the believer. Furthermore, the historic Lutheran leadership has always had a great distrust of any hierarchy emerging in the church. Witness their unwillingness to even call Lutheran leaders "bishop" until 1970. Until then regional heads were called "presidents," a term still used by the Missouri-Synod Lutheran churches. No matter how one looks at this development, the concept of the "historic episcopate" has the potential to fundamentally alter the ELCA.
  
  
• To show how significant the difference between the Episcopal church and the ELCA is on this issue, Meg Madson, a historian from Plymouth, Minnesota, summarizes the differences in the following manner:

1. Where the Episcopalians regard bishops as having the" fullness of ministry" with the power to safeguard the gospel, the ELCA teaches that bishops and pastors share equally in the office of ministry.
2. Episcopal bishops are elected for life, while ELCA bishops are elected for three-year terms.
3. Where Episcopalians regard the historic episcopate as a safeguard for church unity, the ELCA believes the Word and the sacraments are sufficient for this unity.

CCM needs to therefore bridge a rather enormous gap between these two denominations.

Where does the ELCA go from here? According to John Chatelain, Omaha lawyer and committed Lutheran, the CCM will change the ELCA. Practice does shape belief. Therefore, he argues, through a series of regional and national meetings in late 1999 and into 2000, a new fellowship of Lutheran churches may be formed. There are too many individuals and churches very dissatisfied with the CCM who will not accept its implementation. I respect and affirm such efforts. Unity at the expense of foundational doctrine is not unity. John Chatelain, Meg Madson and Christopher Hershman of Allentown, PA are champions of truth and deserve the support and encouragement of other ELCA Lutherans. Theirs is a battle for truth and historic Lutheranism.

I want to thank my friend John Chatelain for his indispensable help in my preparation of this perspective. He helped me read between the lines in much of the ELCA material.

Back to top

JERRY FALWELL AND HOMOSEXUALITY

• Falwell and White friendship go back to 1984, when White, a then husband and father of two, was a star ghost writer for Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker and Billy Graham. Falwell and White developed a close friendship based on trust and mutual respect. But what White did not tell Falwell was that he had struggled with homosexuality since his youth. When he finally left his wife in 1991 and moved in with a male lover, Falwell was stunned. They had not talked since 1991. Falwell refused to answer White's calls and letters and essentially shunned him. This lasted until August when they met again and laid the groundwork for this forum.
  
  
• In a speech Falwell gave to the forum, of which I have a copy, Falwell made the following points:
  

1. "I have not suddenly changed my belief that homosexuality is Scripturally wrong that it is sin."
2. Falwell then reviewed the various crimes of the past few years where people were killed simply because they were homosexual. He contended that this was wrong.
3. He made two propositional statements it is wrong to hate homosexuals and it is wrong for homosexuals to hate Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin. He contended that "there is simply too much hate on both sides of the debate on homosexuality. It must be curbed: First, because hatred is a sin; and second, because hatred too often leads to violence."
4. Falwell then issued a "call for compassionate conviction" by which he meant we state our biblical convictions, with respect and kindness and that we demonstrate our care and compassion for those who disagree with our views.
   

• As I have reflected on this forum, I must say that I am humbled by the meeting. It should have happened a long time ago. But there is a danger: It might be viewed by some as giving legitimacy to homosexuality. But Falwell made clear that his stand has not changed. But it is still a danger. Secondly, the forum could result in greater acceptance of the lifestyle among some Christians. Somehow we as Christians must be able to do what Falwell is calling for share our biblical convictions that homosexuality is a sin and yet demonstrate the love, care and compassion toward homosexuals that they bear God's image, that God loves them, that Jesus died for them and that there is hope in the gospel. To do this is not easy!
  
  
• Dialogue, discussion and prayer like what happened at the Falwell forum is healthy and yet potentially dangerous. If it reduces the violence and hate between the two groups it is worthy and positive. But if such forums further legitimize the lifestyle, that this not pleasing to God. It is healthy but it is profoundly risky!!
  

Back to top