Book of Faith: A Disappointment for Lutheran CORE

[Richard Johnson]

The “Book of Faith: Lutherans Read the Bible” initiative was presented. This is a series of recommendations that will push Bible study over the next several years “with the goal of raising to a new level this church’s individual and collective engagement with the Bible and its teaching, yielding greater biblical fluency, deeper worship and devotion, and a more profound appreciation of Lutheran principles and approaches for the use of Scripture.” The first recommendation which essentially rejoiced that we have the Scripture. Adopted nearly unanimously.

Recommendation 2 gives thanks for the Bible. A New York member moved to insert language (apparently to become a new paragraph after Recommendation 2) “To call members, congregations, synods, churchwide ministries, and institutions and agencies of the ELCA to explore ways to reform culture and customs in this church that will open it to a new level of valuing and being shaped by the power of the Word.” Approved by 72%.

Steven King from SW Minnesota offered an amendment, which came out of Lutheran CORE (though this was not stated by Mr. King). This amendment would change the phrase “and a more profound appreciation of principles and approaches for the use of Scripture” to “and a more profound appreciation of the distinctive Lutheran focus on God’s use of Scripture to bring sinners to repentance and salvation in Christ.” Speakers from Florida and Minnesota spoke in favor (these all lined up ahead of time by Lutheran CORE).

Bishop Burnside from Wisconsin then spoke against the amendment—it “narrows and puts into place our own intention” and “undoes what the original language tries to do.” A speaker from Montana agreed. Bishop Freiheit of Illinois  moved to change the word “sinners” in the amendment to the word “all.” Theologically odd, but then this was a bishop speaking. He’s heard the word “sinner” used in some unfortunate ways. He wants all people looked upon equally in God’s eyes.

A Milwaukee member thought the amendment sounds good, but liked the word “all” better than “sinners.” Bishop Holloway from Ohio agreed.

On the amendment to strike “sinners” and put “all,” the Assembly agreed by 86%, and thus “sinners” were struck. On the amendment itself, there was further speaking. Bp. Ullestad of Iowa was against it. He didn’t like the word “distinctive,” and he also thought the amendment narrowed the use of Holy Scripture. A pastor from upstate New York spoke in favor of the amendment, but wanted to amend it by inserting the word “relationship”—so that God uses Scripture to bring “all” (now) to repentance, salvation, and relationship. Sloppy; relationship to whom, and of what kind? The amendment lost, 44% to 56%.

Bishop April Larson complained that her section couldn’t hear Bp. Ullestad, and requested a do-over. The bishop went to the mic, and apparently mouthed some silent words. Bp. Hanson pronounced him even more eloquent the second time. Then he really did his opposition speech over.

Bishop Marcus Lohrmann from NW Ohio. Another member objected to the phrase “God’s use of Scripture”—God is the author, he insisted, not the “user.” The amendment is well intended, but is afraid we’ll end up putting words in God’s mouth.

David Olson of St. Paul spoke in favor. “We must not lose sight of our [Lutheran] heritage.” Bp. Riley of New Jersey was against it, because it deletes the language about “Lutheran principles and approaches.” (Of course this is exactly the point; CORE is concerned that this opens the door to any number of principles and approaches.)

Jason Day from somewhere or the other moved that the word “repentance” in the amendment be replaced with “faith.” Someone who neglected to identify herself (so Charles refused to listen to her) moved previous question on the amendment to the amendment, and the Assembly agreed to cease debate (87%). The amendment to the amendment was approved by 54%. Makes sense; if it’s no longer about sinners, what need have we for repentance.

Melinda Wagner, Oregon Synod, spoke against the amendment. Lutherans have a unique contribution to the question of how to use Scripture. Seems to me she should have been in favor of it, then, but she wasn’t. I guess she things there’s something unique but not distinctive about the Lutheran focus.

Motion to close debate was approved, and the amendment (now more or less viscerated) was rejected, 29% to 71%. A defeat for Lutheran CORE. (My view: CORE was effective at having people lined up to support the amendment, but not so effective at anticipating the nature of the arguments that would be made against it and preparing counter arguments.)

After a motion to close debate was approved, the final recommendation on the initiative was approved by a vote of 93% to 7%. I wonder who the no votes were—people who don’t want to read the Bible, or people who thought the recommendation had holes big enough to drive the proverbial truck through and were afraid that much mischief might result from a nice-sounding resolution. (My view: sure, maybe some mischief, but never underestimate the power of God to work through his Word; getting ELCA members to read the Bible has to be a positive thing, and it will no doubt bring plenty of sinners to repentance and salvation, no matter what the resolution says!)

Military chaplains who were present were introduced, and got what has been so far the loudest ovation. This was immediately exceeded by a standing ovation for a young naval chaplain, called up from the reserve and recently returned from Iraq, brought to the podium. He got a laugh by thanking the ELCA for the cool welcome in Chicago  (“90 degrees and a little bit of rain—that’s truly living in God’s amazing grace!”).  He thanked the ELCA for their support of chaplains and their families. Bishop Hanson then had us stand and sing the Navy Hymn (“Eternal Father Strong to Save”). This was a stroke of brilliance on someone’s part. As we sang, I breathed a prayer for my young friend and parishioner who is a helicopter pilot in Iraq, and whose father, a Navy veteran, always asks for this hymn when we do our “pick your favorites hymn sing” thing in the summer; and a prayer for all those who serve, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.

As the first budget presentation began, I skipped up to the press room to file this report. I know you'll be disappointed I'm skipping the budget talk by Charles Miller.

[Maryland Brian]

As the first budget presentation began, I skipped up to the press room to file this report.

 Now there's an image!  And, thanks for the info

MD Brian

[Pr. Jerry]

I thought the removal of "sinners" to be replaced by "all" was asinine.  That it a Bishop supported it was even worse.  Bp. Halloway's reasoning was that "it was more inclusive."  Really?  Are there other folks than "sinners" out there that need to be included as well? 

Sigh! I wish I could say that I was surprised, but...  Hey, "sinners" is such a buzz-kill.  "All" is warm and fuzzy. 

Oh well!
Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[Richard Johnson]

Yes, and this is where I think the proponents fell down. It would have been pretty easy to point out that "all" really is no more inclusive than "sinners."

[Rev. Ian Wolfe, STS]

What was the one speaker's comment against the amendment....  He was speaking against the language of "God's use of of scripture."  He was talking something about that God doesn't use scripture, but rather we do.  I am not 100% sure I followed his argument? Richard, do you remember what he was talking about?  

I couldn't believe that the person who argued to replace the word repentance for faith, argued that we can be saved without repentance.  Um....hello!?!?!?  How can we come to faith without repentance?  Am I totally wack but isn't repentance necessary for faith and salvation?  I am pretty sure I read somewhere how Jesus and John liked to preach about, "repenting and believing the good news"?  

GRRRRRRRR- I must confess this is my first CWA that I have watched.  The reasoning and lack of theological argumentation scares me.    

[Pr. Jerry]

GRRRRRRRR- I must confess this is my first CWA that I have watched.  The reasoning and lack of theological argumentation scares me.    

I promised my wife that I would not tune-in this time because last time (2005) I sorta obsessed about CWA and spent the majority of the time glued to my computer screen.  My BP (that's Blood Pressure, not Bishop...) was probably elevated for much of that time, not to mention my wife (and at that time) and screamin' son didn't see much of me through that time and when they did, I was extremely grumpy.  Needless to say, I already broke my promise, though I am not tuning in this afternoon.

I think it's like getting a root-canal...  Sometimes you're better off just closing your eyes and letting the dentist work away while going to your "happy place."  I can't influence things from where I sit (in West--by-God--Virginia), they can't hear my voice on the other side of the monitor.  So, I'm off to my weekly text-study...  The ELCA will do what--it--will either with, or without me watching.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[Brian Stoffregen]

I couldn't believe that the person who argued to replace the word repentance for faith, argued that we can be saved without repentance.

I heard him, through the webcast, say that one can have repentance, but not faith.

[Rev. Ian Wolfe, STS]

I couldn't believe that the person who argued to replace the word repentance for faith, argued that we can be saved without repentance.

I heard him, through the webcast, say that one can have repentance, but not faith.

Brian, I am watching through the webcast as well, but didn't hear him say that.  I must of missed it.  Although I am not 100% sure that argument is any better.  I think I get the gist, but clearly true repentance and true faith are deeply connected.  I am not sure one can be truly repentant without having faith.  It's a both/and not an either/or.   

He seemed to stumble a bit and I could have missed that line in there, for that my apologies. 

[Mark C.]

I couldn't believe that the person who argued to replace the word repentance for faith, argued that we can be saved without repentance.

I heard him, through the webcast, say that one can have repentance, but not faith.

I took him to mean that repentance is something that comes about under faith, but it is really faith that brings salvation.

Mark C.

[scott3]

I couldn't believe that the person who argued to replace the word repentance for faith, argued that we can be saved without repentance.

I heard him, through the webcast, say that one can have repentance, but not faith.

I heard as the good friar heard.  The gentleman's point seemed to revolve around separating repentance from faith as if the two were somehow in tension or conflict with each other rather than being intimately related parts that serve the whole.

But in any case, strictly speaking it's not faith that brings salvation but the promise of God and his favorable attitude toward us in Christ Jesus that does that.  Faith clings to that promise and so, in a secondary way, can be said to bring salvation.  Though I've never liked the phrase "saving faith", anyway, as it puts the focus in the wrong place (on the one who has faith [or worse yet, on the phenomenon of faith itself] rather than on the God Who promises).

[ptmccain]

The floor debate on the amendment made to include specific reference to the forgiveness of sins and Christ as Savior and the vote to defeat that ammendment was, in my opinion, profoundly revealing. And...quite disappointing indeed. The profound ignorance of even the most basic points of Lutheran theology demonstrated in the floor debates was particularly shocking, not least of which is that many of these comments were made by bishops of the ELCA. It seems to me that voting to avoid using the word "sinner" is a pretty good sign that there are deep systemic problems.

[Charles_Austin]

frluther writes:
I must confess this is my first CWA that I have watched.  The reasoning and lack of theological argumentation scares me.   

I comment:
Well, this is not a place for the kind of "theological argumentation" that I believe you speak of. That kind of thing is done in advance by the people preparing these initiatives. Then the assembly tries to tweak or fix some things that may not seem just right a few voting members. Speeches are limited to 2 minutes; making this more of a legislative than a theological forum. But theological work lies behind what is presented here.

And I've been to more than a dozen assemblies/conventions/gatherings.

[Rev. J. Thomas Shelley, STS]

It seems to me that voting to avoid using the word "sinner" is a pretty good sign that there are deep systemic problems.

We simply want to be a "nice" church, inclusive of anybody and everybody, and G-d forbid that we should apply any "label" whatsoever that might damage the penultimate value of self-esteem, much less lead to repentance and amendment of life.

[scott3]

...the penultimate value of self-esteem...

What do you see as the "ultimate" value in the ELCA?

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor McCain writes:
The profound ignorance of even the most basic points of Lutheran theology demonstrated in the floor debates was particularly shocking, not least of which is that many of these comments were made by bishops of the ELCA. It seems to me that voting to avoid using the word "sinner" is a pretty good sign that there are deep systemic problems.

I comment:
Well, I'm not sure you can reliably diagnose "profound ignorance" based upon a two-minute speeches one hears in a floor discussion (it wasn't a "debate") about how best to express one aspect of the Bible-reading initiative. The comments of the bishops weren't "shocking" to anyone who has known or seen them in other settings than in a two-minute television appearance, commenting on a rather trivial aspect of a larger program.
As for the "sinner" reference: gee, even perfect people need salvation.