Emerging Lutherans

Reposted from Kate’s personal blog - Living in the Questions:

I recently read an article at ZDNet about how the CEO of Red Hat Software has gone on record as saying Windows Vista will be the last “planned” software launch the industry will see, opting instead for more collaborative, open-sourced work (see the article here: http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-242593.html)

Now, I find this a very interesting corollary for the church as there has been much discussion among some in the church about structure and polity.  While much of what is seen in traditional, mainline congregations is a top-down hierarchy (at least as viewed from the outside… but that’s a whole other discussion), there is now a trend among many “emerging” congregations to eliminate all hierarchy in favor of a flat-structure.

The push in software development (as seen in the quoted text below) is the sheer number of bugs found in top-down, planned releases such as Vista compared with collaborative, open-source releases such as Linux.  Another reason is to be able to serve the needs of the community because the greater number of people working on the software puts them in touch with more of the community - and in many ways because they themselves have felt the same pain.  So what does this all mean for the church?  I think it is a great idea, and yet in some ways we in mainline denominations (regardless of whether we have clergy or not) are not as open to the idea of open-source theology… interesting to contemplate.

From the ZDNet article:

However, because of the modular development model and the number of parties checking for errors, open-source software comes out with fewer errors and is more organized, he explained. Whitehurst attempted to explain the appeal of open-source software’s participatory “community” model by likening open source to US reality TV competition American Idoland closed products to US pop star Britney Spears.

Of American Idol, he said the record studios were able to spend less to market the eventual winner because audience participation accurately showed which singer was preferred before the competition was over.

Britney Spears, on the other hand, as a “product of millions of dollars in investment” is not a sure bet when each record is released to the public, because the marketing surrounding her was pre-planned and excluded the public, he said.

Whitehurst said during his presentation that development through the open-source community is also faster and often more precise in terms of what customers need, because enterprises are able to contribute code that they have written for their pain points back to the community. He contrasted this with the traditional proprietary method of “listening to customers” and writing code based on that interpretation.

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.

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

I think it’s time to kick things off in the blog world here at emerginglutherans.org…

So I’ll start with a conversation I had this week about truth and postmodernity.  Well, really truth claims and how that all gets sorted out in a postmodern context.  (Looking for a definition of postmodern?  Soon we’ll have definitions up on the Emerging 101 page here).

It’s a tough nut to crack, the notion of what is true when everything is seemingly up for grabs.  Does postmodernity allow us to slide into relativism (the notion that everything is true or good)?  Or are there bounds for what is true?  And perhaps most importantly, what does this all mean for the church?  How do we live out our faith in such a context?  How do we understand truth?  How do we talk about what is true and good when others may not consider it true or good (or have different truth claims)?

The conversation I had this past week tried to address all these questions (note the word tried), but there’s still plenty we’re trying to sort out.  And instead of trying to address all the same questions or recreate/summarize the conversation for you here, I will try to sort out my subsequent thoughts.

First, as a Christian I would affirm that there is absolute Truth (God), but that we as finite humans cannot possibly fully understand that Truth.  We all have different experiences and understandings that shape our perception of the Truth and therefore are always going to differ (even if slightly) on how we see/know/understand/talk about the Truth.  So here I would make a distinction between the Truth (Big T - God as infinite being and absolute Truth) and truth (little t - our finite understandings of God/absolute Truth).

So how do we live as Christians in relation to this?  Does our faith have the right to make truth claims (little t) to the world?  How do we speak to a world in which truth is understood differently by other people? In response, I think we live out our truth claims (we do this all the time, whether we are aware of it or not).  We cannot force another person to accept our truth as their truth, but by living into that which we believe to be true, we create a place where action and dialogue are possible.  It is in this space that there is an opportunity for truth claims to be shifted a bit and hopefully for a bit of the Truth to be revealed.  Therefore, we live in the truth that God is god and has a real interest in the world.

So then, what are the bounds for a true truth?  I would say pure love for every person on earth - that every person has value simply because they are human.  This love pursues what is good and right for the person and allows each to fully live.  Any truth that doesn’t do this is not a true truth.  For example, any truth that asserts one person is “lower” than another is not a true truth.  Each is equally valuable because they are both fully human.  Any truth that exploits one person over another is also not a true truth.  It is through the lens of love that we examine truth claims.

Well, I have more to write and probably  will at some point.  But I’ve put a lot down here and hopefully it begins to make sense…. what do you think?  I’d like to hear from you and maybe we’ll begin a conversation in the comments section below this post.

Kate