Posted on 09/15/2009 12:55:49 PM PDT by Teófilo
A theological analysis.
Folks, as previously reported, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S., through its “Churchwide Assembly,” last month adopted several resolutions that validated cohabitation as an acceptable Christian lifestyle, affirmed the moral goodness of stable same-sex relationships, and removed any impediments for homosexual persons in same-sex relationships to freely exercise the pastoral ministry within the ELCA. I termed these moves a falling into “abject apostasy” or abandonment of Christian teaching. I haven’t changed my mind but in fact, my stance has hardened.
Now, I am sure that many will dismiss my judgment as “presumption.” After all, I am not Lutheran. Why is this any business of mine? Well, because I’m a Christian and sadly, the theological malaise affecting the ELCA is not foreign to the Catholic Church or any other Christian Church or ecclesial body for that matter. Though I am a committed advocate of Catholic exclusivity and indifferent to accusations of “triumphalism,” I’m not blind to the fact that Lutheranism as a global Christian movement is still very close to the Catholic Church in many respects, sharing so many things in common that it’s easy for me to identify myself with those Lutherans wishing to cling to historical Christian truth but that now feel betrayed by their denomination. I feel this empathy not only empowers me to speak knowledgably about this sad turn of events, but also compels me to do so in order to give prophetic witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Conscience Factor
Let’s begin by comparing and contrasting the Catholic and Lutheran notions on “conscience.” The Catholic view on “conscience,” as recorded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is as follows:
Compare this with the ELCA’s definition of “conscience” or “bound conscience”:1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law…
"Conscience," as used in these documents, is neither a "little voice" on your shoulder nor an inborn list of universal rights and wrongs. The social statement understands “conscience” in the way that follows the Apostle Paul, who understood conscience as the unconditional moral responsibility of the individual person before God (Romans 2:15-16). Conscience then concerns not a person’s opinion, but a person's personal identity and integrity before God.The Catholic Church begins by affirming what the ELCA denies by means of a simplistic caricature, that conscience is present in a person’s innermost being and that it enjoins him to act; the ELCA dismisses the Catholic stance outright as that of an inexistent “little voice on your shoulder” or as “an inborn list of universal rights and wrongs.”
To put it plainly, to the ELCA, a conscience lacks any objective contents. Rather, the ELCA sees conscience more as an “attitude” derived from “personal identity” – which they fail to define – and “individual responsibility” before God. We’ll come back to this shortly, after we discuss how Lutherans link this notion of conscience with the individual believer’s interpretation of the Bible obtained by means of “free examen.”
Free Examen, Diversity in Scriptural Interpretation, and “Free” Conscience “Free examen” is one of the least commonly known Protestant tenets and a corollary of sola scriptura, the tenet holding that “Scripture alone” is the single rule of faith and morals for the Christian. “Free examen” means that the individual believer can read and interpret the Bible and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit can extract from the Bible “everything that is necessary for salvation” without the intervention or mediation of a hierarchical body like the Catholic Church.
Lutherans are well aware that different people will understand the Bible differently and, through their reading, upbringings, and life experiences, they will “bind” themselves “in conscience” to their manifold interpretations. Rather than sorting out which biblical interpretations may either inform or misinform an individual conscience, the ELCA has sidestepped the issue completely, and defined conscience as a construct oriented to foster the tolerance among Lutherans of contradicting, even opposite moral mindsets. Therefore, the ELCA allows in principle the equal standing before God and before the community of believers with diametrically opposed moral consciences:
Second, when Christians disagree strongly about an ethical issue of great magnitude, it is important to realize that the difference may not grow out of pride or selfish desires. Rather, it may be because the other’s conscience is bound to a particular interpretation of Scripture and tradition. What is at stake in respecting a conscience that believes strongly about a moral matter of great import is nothing less than the good of the neighbor (Romans 14).
The emphasis of “conscience-bound” is not on declaring oneself to be conscience-bound. Rather, we are bound in love by the conscience of the other—that is, we recognize the conscience-bound nature of the convictions of others in the community of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:28-29). For Lutherans, the reality that people hold deep faith convictions that may be in conflict with the deep faith convictions of others is not merely a procedural or political difficulty because we bear one another’s burdens as sisters and brothers in Christ. For one member to suffer because his or her conscience has been offended is for all of us to suffer.
ELCA theologian Timothy Wengert has aptly summarized the ultimate consequences of this view on “bound conscience” and spins out a rather negative assessment of its value: It is one thing to say, “This is what I believe Scripture says about this issue.” It is quite another to insist that others must adhere to our interpretation. When Christians differ over interpretations of Scripture, no one may simply arrogate to him or herself the authority to judge others but must always beware of “spirituality,” presumption, and pontificating, that is “enthusiasmus,” literally, worshiping the god within (en theou). Moreover, one cannot simply assume that someone else’s position is merely a matter of stubbornness or pride. Instead, one must carefully discern where the neighbor’s conscience is in relation to a particular interpretation of God’s Word. Thus, pastoral concerns and protection for the weak or bound conscience must never be placed out of bounds in theological discussion, especially when dealing with matters of ethics and morality about which Christians fervently disagree.
Wengert equates a “weak conscience” with a “bound conscience.” For him the ideal conscience is one that is not irrevocably bound to any interpretation of Scripture! And what does he propose as the right “pastoral attitude” toward those of “weak” or “bound” consciences? He suggests a pastoral attitude of understanding, perhaps condescending, yet of unyielding “tolerance”. Those of “weak” or “bound consciences” should be heard during “theological discussion, especially when dealing with matters of ethics,” but, since they fall short of the ideal, their opinions should not be allowed, when possible, to control the ELCA’s overall “moral policy”.
That’s exactly what happened when the ELCA reached its resolutions on sexuality and ministry last August.
Critical Judgment of the ELCA's Moral Stance
The ELCA as a denomination embraces moral relativism: they hold that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths (neither objective nor subjective), but that the validity of these propositions relative to social, cultural, or historical circumstances and we may add, diversity in Scriptural interpretation. By denying that conscience has an objective content (no “inborn list of universal rights and wrongs”) they deny that any standard exists by which to assess the objective truth of an ethical proposition. What is left is for the individual to respect the differing consciences within the ELCA and elsewhere, while exercising one’s own “responsibly”. Approval of cohabitation, same-sex union, and the admission of active homosexuals to the ministry then may become morally “good” choices within their relativistic moral universe.
To be fair, ELCA’s documents speak a lot about the need for compassion and acceptance and that’s a part of Christian witness and service to others, I agree. But also, I expected that such stance would lead to neutrality on the whole range of possible moral actions available to Christian believers. We should’ve expected that ELCA pastors and counselors would’ve limited themselves to exact individual responsibility solely from this sense of “unconditional moral responsibility of the individual person” and his or her “personal identity and integrity before God” whatever that may mean to each individual. But that’s not how events panned out.
By affirming the legitimacy of committed and stable extra-marital unions, of same-sex cohabitation, and by welcoming same-sex couples of this kind to the active ministry in the ELCA, the moral-relativists and theological technocrats now controlling the denomination have abandoned all pretense at neutrality and imposed a view that openly violates the “bound consciences” of numerous fellow Lutherans, the technocrat’s claims to respect these Lutherans and include them in the ELCA’s intramural theological conversations notwithstanding. The fact is that Lutherans of “weak” or “bound” consciences now find themselves a powerless minority within the ELCA’s power structures.
Future historians will have to investigate if the exclusion of “conscience bound” Lutherans from the ELCA’s power structures happened by accident or by design. But I must conclude, and I hope you do too, that embracing moral relativism inexorably leads to power games in which the “theological enlightened” and “unbound,” who are also the ones more likely to know and move the levers of power, will always have the advantage in this game, whether in the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the Catholic Church.
I am pleased to report that not every ELCA Lutheran approves of the travesty perpetrated upon their denomination by the enlightened technocrats now controlling the denomination’s moral stance. The members of the Lutheran Coalition for Reform (“Lutheran CORE”) have vigorously criticized and opposed the ELCA’s new proposals in language sometimes approaching that of the Catholic moral tradition. And yet, I am afraid that even this is too little, too late and ultimately bound to fail for as long as they hold to the tenets of sola scriptura and “free examen.” The probability of “out-of-bounds” moral teaching will persist in Lutheranism as the fruit of the poisoned tree of the Protestant Reformation.
It gives me no pleasure, however, to document, strengthen, and magnify the evidence of the ELCA’s apostasy. Along with their Episcopalian cousins, they stand as a warning to others. There, but for the grace of God, we go. This is sobering and should be continuously in our minds and hearts as we strive to live as Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in Word, Sacrament, and Example.
PING!
BUMP!
It’s not apostasy because they had a vote, see ... /sarc
The author is naive at best. Sola Scriptura did not lead down this path. Nor did any real tradition combined with scripture. Apostates and deceivers who have their own agenda are at fault as well as their enablers.
Note to self and to all:
I fixed some paragraph format issues on the blog. Two paragraphs had to be indented and italiced to set them appart as a citation.
Sorry about that. Please, visit the blog to see the post better.
-Theo
Sure. “Naive.” Nice-speak for “ignorant.”
What the heck, I’ll take it without flinching. Here’s my other cheek.
I’m sorry you can’t see the causal chain leading from Sola Scriptura, through “free examen” down to the ELCA’s new moral stance.
C’est la vie.
-Theo
Sorry to offend. Help me understand. What is the link between Sola Scriptura and ignoring scripture?
Great job. You’re truly a “friend of God”. Let’s pray for our Lutheran brothers and sisters.
Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. That is why we have 30,000 and growing christian denominations, because each one "interprets" the Bible in a different way.
There cannot be more than one interpretation of the Bible. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. If you put two protestants from different denominations in the same room with one Bible and notepads, they would each come up with different interpretations. This leads to chaos, as we have seen in the ELCA, the Methodist, Episcopal and Anglican Churches. Even the Evangelical Churches are splitting up, like cancer cells.
Apology accepted! I’ll answer tomorrow.
-Theo
It’s not apostasy because they, individually, FEEL it to be true, and because it is always a worse sin to offend someone else’s something/ anything.
WOW! Talk about ‘up is down.’ Never heard such gobbledy-gook.
It’s not apostasy because they, individually, FEEL it to be true, and because it is always a worse sin to offend someone else’s something/ anything.
WOW! Talk about ‘up is down.’ Never heard such gobbledy-gook.
Back down to only 30,000 are we?
Denominational splits are one thing. The issue at hand is homosexuality. Again what is the connection?
The horrible breakup of Christendom into tens of thousands of denominations rejecting the entirety of divine revelation does not amount to a “Reformation”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.