Emerging Lutherans

It’s been a little bit, but here’s the next post in the series connecting trends in emerging theology and Lutheran theology.

Ever since I read this blog post about ecclesia as res publica, I’ve been thinking a lot about a Lutheran understanding of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church, how we organize ourselves as the church) in relation to an emerging understanding.  It seems to me that while some expressions of the church in an emerging theology may look very different from the traditional Lutheran expression, they are not wholly different.

The author of the blog entry mentioned above discusses a particular “giveness” to emerging ecclesiologies.  That is to say that they are flexible by nature, not set in stone as some expressions of the church (such as in Roman Catholicism).  This flexible nature (as far as I’ve read) comes out of a deep desire by many in the emerging conversation to serve the Gospel.  While there may be an air of rebellion against current ecclesiologies, I do think that the flexibility of the emerging ecclesiologies is in service to the Gospel and mission.

Lutheran ecclesiology also (perhaps contrary to popular belief) has a certain flexibility.  Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and the other Reformers were hesitant to define a clear doctrine of the church.  Instead they desired to see the church structure herself in whatever way would best serve the Gospel.  This is why the ALC and LCA (predecessor church bodies to the ELCA) shifted from using the term President choosing to call them Bishops.  It is also why the ELCA adopted Called to Common Mission (CCM) which entered into fully communion with the Episcopal Church USA (even though many in the church felt that we gave up too much).  Proponents of CCM in the ELCA stated the need to be one church in an age of pluralism and diversity.  They saw the mission of God and the church as key in making the decision.  They understood that what was agreed upon in CCM is not only within the bounds of our flexible ecclesiology but actually demanded by it.

So while some of those in the emerging conversation would structure themselves in unique and seemingly different ways from the traditional Lutheran understanding - it is actually incredibly Lutheran.  So long as it is the missio Dei (mission of God) and the Gospel that are driving the organization.

Since I’ve finally started to get settled in Toronto, SD as I start my fist call as pastor, and since Kate has been having all the fun (or is it doing all the work?) of blogging, I thought it was indeed right and salutary that I “join the conversation.”

Yesterday I made my first home visit as a pastor to an elderly woman who has cancer in her esophagus. This made it difficult to really engage in visiting, but I prayed with her and served her Communion. Very shortly after that, I left to let her rest.

At first, I felt kind of bad, even guilty, that I couldn’t have done more for her; pastoral care classes and Clinical Education (CPE) had ingrained in me the need for deep conversation during pastoral visits. But as I thought about it more, and reflected upon how she reacted during the visit, I realized that all she had really wanted to was to know that her pastor (and therefore her congregation) cared for her and to hear the familiar words of prayer and promise that we here when we receive the Lord’s Supper. That is what she needed, and in providing that for her, my short visit had done a lot for her.

The more I think about it, yesterday’s visit was probably my best pastoral care visit, because I was forced to focus on God’s promises for us in the crucified and risen Christ. Whatever else the Theology of the Cross is about, and Kate is doing a great job talking about it in her posts, it is about these promises of God with us and God for us in our sickness and brokenness to bring healing being at the heart of our theology.

P.S. In future post, I will engage the Forde article that Kate linked to; for now, though, I would like to lift up a book which dedicates an entire chapter to engaging Forde in a thoughtful and constructive way: Christ Crucified by Mark Thomsen.

Till next time, peace be with you.

Aaron

In the last post we began the conversation with the notion that emerging theology is really a reclaiming of many Lutheran principles. Just as living in the tension is a key part of Lutheran theology, so it is in today’s emerging theology. Yet both extend beyond living in the tension and point to more - namely the cross.

While it may have fallen out of favor for a time, Lutherans have been reclaiming Luther’s theology of the cross as an important aspect of our theology. Now, before we go any further, we must take some time out to figure out what exact a theology of the cross is.

To begin, Luther positioned the ‘theology of the cross’ against a ‘theology of glory.’ “‘A theologian of glory,’” (to quote the Lutheran Handbook), “tries to use the cross as a starting point for personal gain - to make people healthy and wealthy, successful and popular. A ‘theologian of the cross,’ in contrast, thinks of the cross as the last stop for sin, death, and delusions of grandeur,” (p. 136). A theology of glory thinks it has things all figured out while a theology of the cross is suspicious of easy answers.  A theologian of the cross sees the cross as a mirror in which to view not only the world but specifically our own lives. The theologian of the cross views everything through the cross while a theology of glory really views everything through their own concepts and ideas. A theologian of the cross calls a thing what it is whereas a theologian of glory calls good bad and bad good (Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation).

While this is only the beginning of trying to define a theology of the cross, it will probably have to do for now. If you you’d like to read more, check out this article by Gerhard Forde.

So now to emerging theology.  As the last post dealt with the notion that emerging theology is a place to wrestle with ideas and live in the tension, this is a key part of a theology of the cross.  Many in the emerging conversation have become weary of those theologies who claim to have all the answers, to have a firm grasp of who God is and what God expects of us.  Stemming out of this weariness, there is an acknowledgement that we can come to know God and experience God, but that we can never fully know God.  This view, while still holding beliefs, leaves more room for doubt and conversation which is exactly in line with a theology of the cross.

A theology of the cross is a refusal of triumphalism.  As Douglas John Hall notes in his book The Cross in Our Context,  “Triumphalism refers to the tendency in all strongly held world-views, whether religious or secular, to present themselves as full and complete accounts of reality, leaving little if any room for debate or difference of opinion and expecting of their adherents unflinching belief and loyalty,” (p. 17).  A theology of the cross refuses this notion and leaves more room open for inquiry.

I will end this portion of the conversation by saying that it is about what happened on the cross.  Both those in the emerging conversation and theologians of the cross seek to reclaim the cross event as a transformational piece in their theologies.  It is in this event that great love is shown by God for creation and all of humankind.  As Hall also notes, the cross is actually God’s great “YES” to humanity.  God so believes in the potential of humanity that God sends a son for our redemption.

Thoughts?  Qustions?  Concerns?

Kate

I’ve been reflecting lately on how much of the emerging conversation is actually about a claiming or reclaiming of what Lutheran theology has been saying for years. So in a series of posts, I will attempt to discuss this in a way that is helpful for the conversation as well as for those of us in Lutheran congregations.

It seems that much of my recent thoughts have occurred in the midst of discussion and this is no different. I was recently at an emerging cohort meeting and one of the other cohort members spoke up about what she has found the emerging conversation to be in recent months. She said, “this is a place to wrestle, a place to question, and a place to live in the tension.”

Living in the tension - that’s part of what makes Lutheran theology distinct. If you’ve been around Lutherans long enough, you’ve probably heard the Latin phrase, simul justus et peccator - at the same time righteous and a sinner. We are fully justified, yet we do not live sin free (at least until the Kingdom is fully realized). We are both saint and sinner - living in the tension.

Emerging theology seeks to live in the questions, wrestling with the Word and what it has to say to our context. At its best, this is what Lutheran theology seeks to do as well… but sadly many of our congregations have gotten away from this for various reasons.

Many in congregations do not feel like their faith community is a place to raise questions, to wrestle with what the Word has to say to us. Many feel like they have to have all the answers in order to be called Christian, in order to come to church even. To admit doubt or question the tradition may seem to be a rejection of the faith entirely. So instead of being honest, these people come to church and pretend everything is good or helpful. But this is far from honest and can even be detrimental to living out our call to proclaim the faith!

So by reclaiming the Lutheran heritage of living in the tension and asking questions, we are also living into what many in the emerging conversation are discovering for the first time.

Kate