Reflections on Mission
We all have a mission: But is it common – not with the Episcopalians, but with ourselves?
President David Tiede’s summary of Luther Seminary’s strategic plan uses the word “mission” over twenty times. Yet my time at Luther has reaffirmed my long standing thought about the ELCA: The term “mission” entails something dramatically different for various people and churches in the ELCA. This lack of coherent, unifying mission results in numerous disagreements: How we engage in ecumenical agreements, how we approach homosexuality, how we “renew” worship and even how we attract new members. At one point, I thought these disagreements resulted from poor leadership and communication, but as I reflect more, I realize there are just fundamental disagreements about the mission of the Lutheran Church in America at this time. I believe this tension reduces the strength of the Church’s witness. However, I do not call for a schism of the Church. There is too much we have in common, theologically and institutionally.
The ELCA has no coherent, unified definition of mission. Searching on the ELCA’s website for a mission statement, I instead found a column “Who we are.” The first two bullets under this heading read: Congregational Organization and History. That probably reflects much of what most ELCA churches share in common with each other: an ecclesiastical structure and an quasi-related ethnic heritage. This lack of an expressed missions statement does not, in my mind, simply reflect poor leadership in Chicago, but fundamental differences in the members of the ELCA.
The rift over homosexuality demonstrates this clearly. We do not agree on this issue as a Church. Although this issue revolves around specific practices in the Church and even specific texts in Scripture, I believe it relates to a more dramatic tension, which George Hunsberg described as the “polarization between Christian action for social justice and Christian action for personal morality.” As one Pastor from my home synod, who strongly supports more progressive GLBT positions, put it nicely, “Many people out there are waiting for someone from the Church to stand up and say, ‘It’s not about the rules.’” Yet I also know many Lutherans who feel the Church has become a doormat, far too quiet in its call to discipleship. These are often the same people who want the Church to maintain its current teaching on the matter.
Even if this current polarization did not exist, the mission contexts our congregations find themselves in are quite different. Rural, suburban, and urban represent one axis of differentiation. The broader religious (and Lutheran) environment is another, e.g., Oregon is much more secular than Oklahoma. While sociologists who write about missionology love broad themes, what do most ELCA congregations share in their sense of the church, the gospel and the culture? What does resurrection mean to a dying farm community versus a growing suburban enclave? What does social justice mean in the Wisconsin Bible Belt versus New York City?
I suggest that this lack of coherent mission hurts church growth. Kenneth Inskeep and Jeffery Drake did a worship survey for the ELCA which found that “the single most important factor associated with a change in average worship attendance is a clear sense of mission or purpose.” Logic suggests this is true on a more macro level. The competing senses of mission mean the Church cannot put forward policies and materials that help Churches carry out their local mission. For example, if a church in San Francisco wanted to marry a gay couple and thus, carry out their witness to the local community, namely that we are a Church (radically) involved in peace, justice and equality, they could not currently do so without risking censure. Or if a Church wanted a collection of contemporary music with lyrics that rose above emotional epithets, they would find that the ELCA’s current musical development straddles the line between the contemporary and traditional in way that may not fit their needs.
Yet, I believe there are obvious reasons to remain a united Church. First, there is more than one division. While I still maintain that the homosexuality divide illustrates deeper divisions, the members of the ELCA do not easily line up in two camps. For example, two people may firmly agree on homosexuality, but may differ on mission outreach, worship style, or even institutional authority. There are probably three, if not closer to five or six camps in the Church. Furthermore, individual churches host members of these camps as well. Ultimately, if a major divide did happen, churches, not just the church, would be split.
Second, benefits from scope exist. Financially a split would be inefficient because even if the Church bodies became leaner, duplication would be inevitable. Take, for example, church building. Having two departments of research and two Mission Investment Funds would serve no one. A larger pool of Lutheran youth also facilitates sustaining numbers at Lutheran camps, school and Seminaries. It also allows for keeping more churches in contact with each other for opportunities to connect with Lutheran around the rest of the world. Seminary education seems the most obvious benefit of size. Our education exposes us to various ways of thinking and more narrowly defining our education would weaken it. Furthermore, so many pieces of the puzzle, from Greek to Church History to Confessions would be shared across various Lutheran sub-denominations.
I think the solution is a weak confederation. In some ways, this already exists, with more and more Churches aligning themselves with like-minded Churches in the ELCA (Word Alone, Dorado Convention, RIC etc). The call for a “regional” sexuality policy further attests to the reality of a diminished union between us that resembles a confederation rather than a split. I humbly admit that I have not yet figured out exactly what this will look like. However, I think we need to spend less time trying to find a non-existent middle ground between our senses of mission and figure out a way to maintain a connection with each other such that we can still benefit from what we do have in common.
President David Tiede’s summary of Luther Seminary’s strategic plan uses the word “mission” over twenty times. Yet my time at Luther has reaffirmed my long standing thought about the ELCA: The term “mission” entails something dramatically different for various people and churches in the ELCA. This lack of coherent, unifying mission results in numerous disagreements: How we engage in ecumenical agreements, how we approach homosexuality, how we “renew” worship and even how we attract new members. At one point, I thought these disagreements resulted from poor leadership and communication, but as I reflect more, I realize there are just fundamental disagreements about the mission of the Lutheran Church in America at this time. I believe this tension reduces the strength of the Church’s witness. However, I do not call for a schism of the Church. There is too much we have in common, theologically and institutionally.
The ELCA has no coherent, unified definition of mission. Searching on the ELCA’s website for a mission statement, I instead found a column “Who we are.” The first two bullets under this heading read: Congregational Organization and History. That probably reflects much of what most ELCA churches share in common with each other: an ecclesiastical structure and an quasi-related ethnic heritage. This lack of an expressed missions statement does not, in my mind, simply reflect poor leadership in Chicago, but fundamental differences in the members of the ELCA.
The rift over homosexuality demonstrates this clearly. We do not agree on this issue as a Church. Although this issue revolves around specific practices in the Church and even specific texts in Scripture, I believe it relates to a more dramatic tension, which George Hunsberg described as the “polarization between Christian action for social justice and Christian action for personal morality.” As one Pastor from my home synod, who strongly supports more progressive GLBT positions, put it nicely, “Many people out there are waiting for someone from the Church to stand up and say, ‘It’s not about the rules.’” Yet I also know many Lutherans who feel the Church has become a doormat, far too quiet in its call to discipleship. These are often the same people who want the Church to maintain its current teaching on the matter.
Even if this current polarization did not exist, the mission contexts our congregations find themselves in are quite different. Rural, suburban, and urban represent one axis of differentiation. The broader religious (and Lutheran) environment is another, e.g., Oregon is much more secular than Oklahoma. While sociologists who write about missionology love broad themes, what do most ELCA congregations share in their sense of the church, the gospel and the culture? What does resurrection mean to a dying farm community versus a growing suburban enclave? What does social justice mean in the Wisconsin Bible Belt versus New York City?
I suggest that this lack of coherent mission hurts church growth. Kenneth Inskeep and Jeffery Drake did a worship survey for the ELCA which found that “the single most important factor associated with a change in average worship attendance is a clear sense of mission or purpose.” Logic suggests this is true on a more macro level. The competing senses of mission mean the Church cannot put forward policies and materials that help Churches carry out their local mission. For example, if a church in San Francisco wanted to marry a gay couple and thus, carry out their witness to the local community, namely that we are a Church (radically) involved in peace, justice and equality, they could not currently do so without risking censure. Or if a Church wanted a collection of contemporary music with lyrics that rose above emotional epithets, they would find that the ELCA’s current musical development straddles the line between the contemporary and traditional in way that may not fit their needs.
Yet, I believe there are obvious reasons to remain a united Church. First, there is more than one division. While I still maintain that the homosexuality divide illustrates deeper divisions, the members of the ELCA do not easily line up in two camps. For example, two people may firmly agree on homosexuality, but may differ on mission outreach, worship style, or even institutional authority. There are probably three, if not closer to five or six camps in the Church. Furthermore, individual churches host members of these camps as well. Ultimately, if a major divide did happen, churches, not just the church, would be split.
Second, benefits from scope exist. Financially a split would be inefficient because even if the Church bodies became leaner, duplication would be inevitable. Take, for example, church building. Having two departments of research and two Mission Investment Funds would serve no one. A larger pool of Lutheran youth also facilitates sustaining numbers at Lutheran camps, school and Seminaries. It also allows for keeping more churches in contact with each other for opportunities to connect with Lutheran around the rest of the world. Seminary education seems the most obvious benefit of size. Our education exposes us to various ways of thinking and more narrowly defining our education would weaken it. Furthermore, so many pieces of the puzzle, from Greek to Church History to Confessions would be shared across various Lutheran sub-denominations.
I think the solution is a weak confederation. In some ways, this already exists, with more and more Churches aligning themselves with like-minded Churches in the ELCA (Word Alone, Dorado Convention, RIC etc). The call for a “regional” sexuality policy further attests to the reality of a diminished union between us that resembles a confederation rather than a split. I humbly admit that I have not yet figured out exactly what this will look like. However, I think we need to spend less time trying to find a non-existent middle ground between our senses of mission and figure out a way to maintain a connection with each other such that we can still benefit from what we do have in common.
posted by RJM at 2:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home