Living Theology
in the Metropolitan Chicago Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church
In America
Volume 5, Number 1
Lent 2000
The Forde/Nestingen
Letter Critiqued
Passage of “Called to Common Mission” by the 1999
Churchwide Assembly has brought a storm of protest organized as the so-called
“WordAlone Network.” A preview of the
protest could be seen in heated discussions of the “Mahtomedi Resolution” at
synod assemblies last year. Let’s
Talk published the proceedings of a pre-assembly forum at our MCS assembly
that provided an opportunity for each side to air its case. (See Volume 4, Issue 2, “How Shall We Answer
the Call to Common Mission.”) Since
then the WordAlone Network has expanded its protest to other ecumenical
decisions of the ELCA, in particular to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine
of Justification with the Roman Catholic Church. The Editorial Board of Let’s Talk has searched for ways
to stimulate discussion of this dissenting movement and its implications. Below we are republishing an open letter to
congregations from Professors Gerhard O. Forde and James A. Nestigen of Luther
Seminary. Congregations were urged by the writers to reprint this letter in
newsletters, bulletins, etc. Following
the letter is a critique. We
invite you to take part in this discussion by writing to the editor. Let’s Talk!
Professor Gerhard O. Forde
Luther Seminary
St. Paul, MN 55108
Professor James A. Nestingen
Luther Seminary
St. Paul, MN 55108
January, 2000
Dear Pastors, Members, and
Friends of the ELCA,
These are perilous times for
our church. Discussion and Assembly decisions
about “Called to Common Mission” and the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification” have precipitated what can only be considered a grave
confessional crisis. The confessional
witness is being shunted aside by those who are supposed to expound and defend
it. Like many of you, we are deeply
troubled by this crisis.
The crisis comes about not so
much because the Confessions of the Church are overtly ignored, although there
is plenty of that, but rather because even when invoked there is little careful
investigation or exegesis of the confessional documents themselves, their
history and significance. Thus the
confession is being emptied of content.
Disputants will say, for example, “In my opinion the situation is not
serious enough to warrant the claim that we find ourselves in statu
confessionis.” Individual
opinion is substituted for careful interpretation. By what right is such judgment to be made? For that matter, what authority does a
church assembly have over against the Confessional writings of the church? There is a tendency to assume that since the
assembly has spoken the case is closed.
But if the assembly decision conflicts with the confession the case is
just beginning. This, precisely, is
what we need to talk about. By what
right, for instance, does our leadership sign agreements with Rome? Judgments are made, but there is no “proof,”
no substantiation of the opinion, no confessional warrant for the action. Pastors and lay persons with legitimate
confessional concerns are dismissed without reason. And so we are left with a collection of opinions with no assured
content. We are just adrift. This is our crisis.
When there is just a
collection of opinions with no content, church officials provide an agenda of
their own. Having lost our bearings we
succumb easily to thought and practices contrary to the confessions. What we need now is a return to the
confessional teaching and practice of our church so that we know where we stand
in times of peril. This should not be
misunderstood as anti-ecumenical. We
should support those who are concerned about the matters before us. Indeed, we could profit from a series of
Confessional Congresses to study these matters. There is a real danger that we will just grow tired of the whole
matter and allow the momentous issues before us to be settled by default. We must not do that. We are called to be true to our confession. This is where we must stand.
Gerhard O. Forde, Luther
Seminary
James A. Nestingen, Luther
Seminary
Note,
first, that the letter was sent to congregations. It is largely a complaint about the purported élitism of the ELCA
leadership, in particular their alleged assumption of power unchecked by the
now-diminished authority of the Lutheran Confessions, and the use of that power
to make ecumenical agreements that are contrary to the witness of the
confessions. Thus the letter is a
populist appeal to congregations to restore the confessions to their rightful
place so that the people may see clearly the error of the ecumenical
agreements. Near the end, almost as a
“by the way,” there is a suggestion as to how this might be accomplished:
“Indeed we could profit from a series of Confessional Congresses to study these
matters.”
This
is not the first time that doubts about the ELCA’s confessional faithfulness
have been voiced (see, for example, Let’s Talk Volume 3, Issue 2,
“Confessional Renewal Movements in the 1990s,” which discusses, among other
things, the 9.5 Theses), but are Professors Forde and Nestigen serious about
confessional congresses? As with the
rest of the letter, the suggestion is short on specifics. If it were amplified into a serious
proposal, such confessional congresses could be considered as a fruitful and
constructive response to the perceived
“grave confessional crisis.” But
serious consideration would require that the ELCA leadership and the leadership
of the dissenting WordAlone Network agree to a structure and an agenda for the
congresses, going forward together in the profound hope that the attendant
dialogue would be salvatory for the ELCA in the midst of crisis. There is little in the present climate to
suggest that this would be possible.
The
discussion of confessional issues has become politicized, by which I mean that
it focuses on persuasion as science and art.
This is not the same thing as reasoned discourse. There is plenty of blame to go around:
·
The
leadership of the ELCA has proceeded to ecumenical arrangements without a
period of catechesis for the whole church, in particular for those who vote at
the Churchwide Assembly. They have
brought matters of great doctrinal import before the Assembly without adequate
educational preparation.
·
The
WordAlone Network is organizing a National Constituting Convention to plan
resistance to the historic episcopate. Their Web site (www.wordalone.org)
is a marketing tool that promotes an ideological revolt within the ELCA. It contains model forms that a protesting
congregation may use when it withholds benevolence contributions. It contains declarations of various
congregations that they will not accept the actions of the ELCA to implement
“Called to Common Mission.” The Web
site contains recommendations for sacramental practices at variance with the
ELCA Statement on “The Use of the Means of Grace,” in particular the
unauthorized presidency of laypersons at the Eucharist. By promulgating such ideas the WordAlone Network
is attempting to build a constituency of dissent.
The
letter is weakened by its near contempt for other interpretations of the
confessions. If Professors Forde and
Nestigen are serious about the give-and-take of a confessional congress they
must do better than insist that we have been “left with a collection of
opinions with no assured content” and are “just adrift.” They must recognize the competence of
theologians who do not hold their views.
They and other members of the WordAlone Network must remember that the
dialogues leading to the Concordat and the Joint Declaration were carried
forward by some of the most able theologians in the church – Lutheran,
Anglican, and Roman Catholic. These
dialogues were not conducted in haste or in secret: they were well documented
over a period of many years.
I
must conclude that the idea of confessional congresses is not a serious
proposal in this letter. I hope that
these distinguished spokesmen might make a serious proposal for such
congresses. These are indeed “perilous
times for our church” as the letter says.
The peril is increased dramatically by the lack of real dialogue. We, the people in congregations to whom the
letter is addressed, we who wish to work and think together are still waiting
to see what shall be taught in our church.
Wayne
R. Cowell
Member,
Gloria Dei, Downers Grove
Member,
MCS Ecumenical Affairs Committee