Living
Theology in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Volume 12, Number 2
Summer 2007
Hispanic-Latino Theology and Ministry
Diversity
of a Different Sort:
Theology
and American Lutheran Identity
By Gregory Holmes Singleton
Ethnicity
is an important factor in understanding diversity within the complex identity
of the ELCA. It is one of a number of variables
necessary to comprehend the social and cultural complexities of any large
pluralistic population in the United States. Other key factors are
gender, sexuality, class, region, and local social morphology (urban, suburban,
exurban, small town, rural). Each of these, along with ethnicity, has
received considerable attention in various ELCA forums.
One
could argue that our early Confessional heritage—a mixture of Teutonic,
Scandinavian, Baltic and Slavic influences—demands that we understand Lutheran
identity with a strong emphasis on ethnicity.
Closer to home on this side of the Atlantic, we are all aware of the
Germans in Pennsylvania and Scandinavians in Delaware and New Jersey and the
different historical trajectories of those expressions of the Lutheran ethos in
British Colonial America and the Early Republic. Memories of the Suomi Synod, the continuing
witness of the Slovak Zion Synod, and the addition of This Far by Faith and
Libro de Liturgia y Cántico to our worship resources underscore the
importance of ethnicity in understanding our past, present and future.
Ironically,
the diversity of the ELCA created by our various theological styles has
received significantly less attention.
With no intent to detract from the importance of ethnicity, gender,
sexuality, class, region, and local social morphology, let us consider theology
as an important factor in understanding our identity as Lutherans.
The
most familiar early American example of theological difference emerged within
an ethnic group—the broad German language tradition. The contrast between the
theology (particularly the ecclesiology) of Samuel Schmucker (1799 -1873) and
C. F. W. Walther (1811-1887) is instructive.
Samuel was nur-tured in the U.S. in an expression of the Christian faith
formed during the British Reformation in Maryland. He sought to both honor the tradition he
inherited from his German father and cooperate with the Calvinist expression
dominant in his father’s adopted nation.
Walther,
born in Saxony, migrated to the United States after his university education,
ordination, and a brief pastorate. He
sought to preserve the integrity of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the face of what he
perceived as a dominant Reformed culture tending towards secularism. Some of the present issues separating the
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and the ELCA trace their origins to these two
early perspectives.
Today
the ELCA is poised as a (perhaps the) keystone in American
ecumenical relations. Indeed, the merger
that created our Churchwide body gives clear institutional incarnations to the
visions of Schmucker and Walther.
This
characterization of both bodies contains some truth, but also obscures a good
deal of complexity. The clergy and laity
of the LCMS do not think as a monolithic whole.
Nor can the ELCA be understood as a united front in ecumenical
involvement. Indeed, the route to our
various ecumenical agreements involved a series of strong dissents. One of the measures, Concordat of Agreement,
failed and had to be redrafted as Called to Common Mission. Even after re-drafting and adoption, the
measure continues to be diluted through a strategy for ordination under unusual
circumstances.
These
fracture lines are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explicit and
implicit theological diversity within the ELCA.
Several books written over the past two decades present ample evidence
that theological diversity is a persistent reality within the Church of the
Augsburg Confession, and these authors draw particular attention to the
manifestation of that diversity in our own time:
Richard
Cimino (editor). Lutherans Today:
American Lutheran Identity in the 21st Century. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2003.
Eric
W. Gritsch. A History of Lutheranism.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
David
A. Gustafson. Lutherans in Crisis:
The Question of Identity in America.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
L.
DeAne Lagerquist. The Lutherans. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999
(particularly Ch. 6 and 7).
Edgar
R. Trexler. Anatomy of a Merger: People, Dynamics, and Decisions that Shaped
the ELCA. Minneapolis: Augsburg
Press, 1991.
Edgar
R. Trexler. High Expectations: Understanding the ELCA’s Early Years,
1988-2002. Minneapolis: Augsburg
2003.
These
works, taken as a body, address the years following a quarter-century of
remarkable theological ferment in the United States and in the world. From about 1945 to about 1970 theological
discussion clustered primarily around the works of six key figures, five of
whom were either Lutheran or were heavily influenced by Lutheran thought. The martyred Dietrich Bonhoeffer sought a
Christian theory of social action rooted in Gospel rather than ethics. Paul Tillich sought something approaching a
“unified field theory” that would bridge both theology and cultural
theory. Reinhold Niebuhr sought a
political realism that would recognize both the grace and the necessary sin in
the exercise of power. His brother H.
Richard constantly presented us with the complexities, ambiguities and
contradictions of Christian life in America.
The resurrected Soren Kierkegaard held up a mirror of Gospel through an
existential lens and invited us to see the unflattering image of the true
reflection. (The sixth key figure, Karl
Barth, was also influenced by Luther’s thought, as is forcefully argued by
Randall Zachman in his review of Sun Wook Chung’s Admiration and Challenge:
Karl Barth’s Theological Relationship with John Calvin in the April 2004
edition of Theology Today.) As
different as the subject matters of these theological exemplars may
have been, they each turned our attention to our commonality as fallen and
redeemed creatures.
Since
the 1970s theological discussion has taken us in a variety of directions. While theology of commonality continues in
the work of scholars such as Carl Braaten and Robert Jen-sen, we now have an
increasing variety of hyphenated theologies (many following contours of
ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and other factors) that may further fragment us. We have at least two competing movements
within the ELCA both advocating the distinctiveness of Lutheran identity, one
clearly articulating its essentially Protestant nature and the other
articulating the essentially catholic (or Catholic) nature of that identity.
This
is an observation, not a cry of despair.
Theological diversity is a constant in the history of Christianity. So it was when the author of Luke/Acts wrote
a remarkably different account of the theological discourse between Peter and
Paul than can be found in the writings of Paul himself. Luther was capable of disagreeing with
himself [see Jaroslav Pelikan, Spirit vs. Structure: Luther and the
Institutions of the Church (New York: Harper & Row, 1968)]. The earliest generations of German-speaking
adherents of the Augsburg Confession contained conflicting voices: e.g.,
Joachim Westphal and Martin Chemnitz.
Down to our own time differing theological positions have continued
through pietism, rationalism, existentialism, modernism, neo-orthodoxy,
post-modernism and a variety of other categories.
An
ecclesial body that comprehends members of both Lutheran CORE
(“traditionalist”) and Lutherans Concerned (“revisionist”) clearly contains
significant theological differences. The
question is whether we perceive these differences theologically and deal with
them under the criterion of the Gospel, or whether we characterize these
differences using the invective of divisions within the torn social fabric to
which we are called to minister. My
great fear is that much of the rhetoric in which debates within the ELCA are
framed place more focus on demographic (e.g. ethnic, gender, class) and
lifestyle characteristics than on the theology informing the various positions
presented. If this perspective is correct,
it points to the possibility that our deliberations may further tear that
social fabric rather than bring the healing Word.
What
is essential for faithful dialogue in the face of diverse perspectives is for
theology to once again occupy center stage in our common deliberations. Let me be bluntly obvious in what I am
suggesting. Certainly we should give at
least as much attention to insuring the presence of the full range of
theological diversity in the voting membership of our Synod and Churchwide Assemblies
as we do in the case of other categories of diversity.
Questions
for ELCA Seminaries
In order to help elevate the place of
theology in our ecclesial discourse, the Editorial Council of Let’s Talk
invites the Presidents (or their designees) of the eight seminaries of the ELCA
to discuss the following questions:
In what ways are seminarians being prepared to
deal with theological pluralism both within the ELCA and in the broader
ecclesial world created by our ecumenical partnerships?
Are current trends in theological discourse
concentrating on the commonality of the human condition under the criterion of
the Gospel? Are current trends in
theological discourse concentrating on specific populations under the criterion
of the Gospel? Can these two approaches
be reconciled and blended?
From a theological perspective, is our Lutheran
identity an important issue?
Is there a distinction between engaging a
culture theologically and conforming theology to a culture? If so, how does one maintain that difference
in practice?
We
hope to present responses to these questions in a future edition of Let’s
Talk.
Gregory Holmes Singleton
Professor of
History, Emeritus
Northeastern
Illinois University