What might we do now if we believe that the ELCA's adoption of "Called to Common Mission" (CCM) was not only unwise but also threatens the understanding of church and ministry in the Lutheran Confessions? In particular, what should pastors, congregations, synods, and seminarians do if we are to remain part of the ELCA but continue to work against the dangers of CCM?
An obvious answer is that we should work to have the next churchwide assembly overturn the decision. Unless something catastrophic happens, however, either in the ELCA's implementation of CCM or in the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) itself-something which would so outrage Lutherans as to make overturning the 1999 vote on CCM a political possibility-the chances of succeeding seem very slim.
What, then? The theological case against CCM has been made over and over but its fine points are difficult for many pastors and most laity to grasp. The failure of adult education in our congregations and the failure of many of our seminaries to ground their graduates deeply in the Confessions could not be overcome by crash courses in the highly politicized situation during the past few years. This is not to suggest that we shouldn't work very hard at the educational task but only that this by itself is not a sufficient way to oppose CCM in the near future.
One thing we might do is seize on every sentence in CCM and in the ELCA bishops' statement (that is now part of CCM) to identify key points that could be used to protect pastors and seminarians from being forced into a crisis of conscience. For example, in paragraph 13 of CCM it is stated that even in the ECUSA the historic episcopate is not held to be necessary for salvation or for their recognizing another church to be a true church; they only consider the historic episcopate to be necessary for establishing full communion. (See also paragraph 18.) In contrast, we need to emphasize its non-necessity for Lutherans, which CCM also states.
We need to show Lutherans why we hold that if all that is necessary for the church to be the church is the word and the sacraments (understood according to the doctrine of justification by faith alone), precisely because that is all that is necessary for salvation, then for the unity of the church nothing else is necessary either. The "requirement" that the ELCA adopt the historic episcopate is clearly, even in CCM, at a much lower level of necessity than agreement on the word and sacraments. This is what the document says and we must insist that this is how it is implemented, as a non-necessity, especially in those instances when matters of conscience are involved.
For example, will the ELCA prevent a properly elected new synod bishop, who refuses to be installed into the historic episcopate and whose synod supports him/her, from serving in that pastoral office? If that were to happen it would amount to the ELCA elevating the necessity of the historic episcopate above that of the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Would a bishop-elect and a whole synod be put under discipline or even expelled from the ELCA for refusing the "gift" of the historic episcopate?
What about properly approved and called graduating seminarians who are opposed as a matter of principle to the historic episcopate: will the ELCA refuse to allow them to be ordained by a pastor or a bishop not in historic succession? This is the likely test case, since one seminarian and one congregation have very little leverage. Yet, if ordination by bishops in historic succession is not necessary, except as a concession by the ELCA to the ECUSA for the sake of full communion, it is wrong to force it on Lutheran congregations and seminarians who are opposed to it in principle and as a matter of conscience. Perhaps the seminarian in question could sign an agreement that he or she will promise never to serve in any ECUSA parishes as a condition of being ordained in another way!
There do not appear to me to be a lot of other things in CCM for opponents to utilize. However, the ELCA bishops' interpretation of CCM contains a few things that we need to hold on to if we are help the ELCA to avoid some of CCM's pitfalls: for example, the single office of ordained ministry, no bishops for life, no requirement to establish an office of deacon in parallel with the ECUSA's deacons, no requirement that the Ordinal of the ECUSA will apply to the ELCA, no re-ordination of pastors who are received onto the roster of the ELCA even if they have not been ordained by a bishop in historic succession, the continued possibility of having licensed lay persons preach and administer the sacraments; also, that the historic episcopate is in no way a guarantee of the faithful transmission of the faith, that ELCA pastors will continue to preside at confirmations, and that future ELCA churchwide assemblies will be free to make changes in matters related to full communion. Extremists among the opponents may say that none of these matters, but taken all together and taught and practiced consistently they may offer some help in preventing misguided practice from dictating theology. Each of these points needs to be asserted forcefully in the early steps of CCM's implementation to keep an already bad situation from getting worse.
What will individual ELCA pastors do when they are asked to preach or participate in ordinations by a bishop in historic succession? What will I do if one of my seminary student advisees asks me? Will I keep my hands clean by refusing? Will I simply go along in order to be supportive of my advisee or to avoid embarrassing the congregation or the bishop? Or will I preach and, in so doing, make it clear that what the bishop is about to do could be done by any pastor in the church and, in emergencies, by lay people because the call of God though the church is the key-and not who performs the ordination? Or will I participate in a clandestine ordination by pastors the day before, so that at least some people will know that what the bishop does is not the real thing? Will I support a network or coalition of ELCA parishes committed to maintaining an "H.E. Free zone" within the ELCA composed of congregations and individuals committed to not accepting the historic episcopate and to supporting pastors and seminarians of the same mind by calling and when necessary ordaining them and setting up separate pension arrangements and mobility systems? As a matter of conscience will opponents who are pastors need to resign from the ELCA clergy roster or from various national, synodical, and other ELCA boards, committees, and offices if we are to keep from supporting the conditions of CCM? In this case is the saying true that "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem?" In this conflict is there no neutral zone? What about lay members and congregations? Must lay opponents also withdraw from ELCA activities beyond their congregation? Should congregations withhold funds even though doing so may harm all sorts of important tasks, such as global mission, outreach, and various social ministries that had nothing to do with the adoption of CCM and certainly do not stand to benefit from it?
As the reader will have noticed, I have far more questions than answers. But if we do not ask questions, we won't discover answers. More importantly, we need to work on the questions and the answers together. What is not an option is to stick our heads in the sand and hope everything turns out all right. Nor is it a responsible option to remain cynics-sitting on the sideline dreaming of a new and better church body. (Think of the AFLC and the AALC and other little groups whose only reason for being is that they were against something.) We need courage and endurance; we need mutual support and sustained commitment. We need to remember that the congregations are the heart and soul of any church body-not the synods or churchwide structures. This does not mean congregationalism but it means realizing the power that we have as pastors and people together in congregations.
In my lifetime as a Lutheran my church body has had four different names and each one had slightly different organizational systems. What has not changed is that the local congregation has always been the place where God reaches people through the means of grace and where Christian education, pastoral care, and fellowship occur and from which evangelism and works of justice and mercy emanate. Congregations can relate to and cooperate with other congregations in many ways and must do so if we are all one in Christ. But larger organizational systems come and go and should not be granted more respect or fear than they deserve.
It is a shame that ELCA leaders on the winning side of the vote in Denver have done so little to deal with the serious theological problems that drive the opponents of CCM. At first, their "pastoral" attempts to pacify the opponents were condescending. Now, their silence is deafening. They seem to think that if they keep their heads down and their mouths shut the opposition will wither away. Yet the opposite seems to be happening: opposition is spreading and becoming more militant. What should be an issue within the ELCA may become the issue that splits the ELCA. Would ELCA leadership sacrifice thousands of ELCA pastors and congregational members for the sake of full communion with another church body? Will the legacy of the presiding bishop be that he took over a church body that was poised to move forward in mission and left it deeply divided, if not split, over matters that ought to be secondary?
The opponents can keep the pressure on. We can organize and strategize and do everything possible to prevent the implementation of CCM from taking place or slow it down, at least. But we cannot manage its implementation in such a way that it will be done in a manner that does not run roughshod over either the Confessions or the opponents. Only those in power, only those who used every means possible to get CCM through the Assembly, can take the lead in its responsible and respectful implementation. Is that too much to ask?
Opponents may feel as if we have little reason to trust the words of those who have caricatured and demonized us and our theology and our Confessional commitment in this struggle. Nevertheless, I think we ought to try to work for a better way if and when ELCA leaders take some initiative. I have long thought that cynicism is the greatest sin because it is so corrosive and contagious. I am disappointed by the amount of cynicism I sense among some of the most extreme opponents. I think we must do better.
God's will will be done, as Martin Luther said. We pray that it will be done also among us. We must continue to do what we believe to be faithful and true, even as we realize that it does not all depend on us. Don't give up. Stay and pray and take part in these and other uncommon missions for the sake of the gospel.