In 2001, the Missouri Synod, the second most numerous American Lutheran body, ceased to recognize the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as an orthodox Lutheran body. From 1998 to 2009, noted Lutheran theologians Jaroslav Pelikan, Jay Rochelle, Leonard Klein, Robert Wilken and Bruce Marshall all left the ELCA for the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches. Last summer, the ELCA voted to ordain non-celibate homosexuals, igniting a firestorm of dissent among Lutherans the world over and causing the formation of a new synod. A synod is a regional or national organization of churches united in common faith.
How did Luther’s church, the church which followed the Word of God and naught else, become embroiled in such disputes? While the problems are symptomatic of a shift away from Lutheranism and towards mainstream liberal Protestantism, the driving force behind this shift is that the church no longer regards the authority of Scripture as absolute. I find that the main culprit in this undermining of the Holy Word has been the movement of scriptural interpretation away from the Sola Scriptura approach of the Reformers and toward the modern historical-critical interpretation.
Sola Scriptura is a principle held by the Reformers that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith. This approach looks at what the Bible says and its application to the Christian in both his earthly life and in the ever after. On the other hand, all St. Olaf students who have completed their Bible 121 course know the historical-critical interpretation. It is the dry method the Harper Bible Commentary describes as focusing on “what kind of work it [the Bible] is, how it came to be written, what the intentions of its author(s) were, what purpose it was meant to serve.”
The problem with this method of interpretation, as the description makes evident, lies in the fact that it treats the Bible like any other work of literature. The ELCA claims to “accept the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life” in its official confession of faith, but then chooses to endorse an interpretation that treats the Bible as though it were a piece by Shakespeare, or some even more mundane work. From this interpretation arises the aforementioned problems.
If, as the ELCA claims, and as the Formula of Concord states, the Bible is “the prophetic and apostolic scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the pure, clear fountain of Israel,” the disputes in interpretation would not have arisen. The authority of Scripture precludes such debates.
However, with the historical-critical interpretation, the Scriptures become like other primitive Semitic writings or letters to ancient Mediterranean communities, no longer pertaining to our advanced, modern culture. Decision-making on critical issues then becomes subject to the reason and experience of voting members. Let one remember when considering this change that Luther called reason “a whore and an enemy of faith,” and that the experience is that of the individual member, not of cumulative church tradition.
If the ELCA’s emphasis no longer falls on the traditions of the ancient church or the Holy Scriptures, then it may follow that the ELCA believes new prophecy and revelation are revealing the Word of God. Martin Luther condemned Thomas Müntzer for this very heresy. That same Müntzer also claimed to be the second Daniel, an interpreter of dreams, and stirred up the German peasantry in bloody revolt. If, on the contrary, that is not the case and the ELCA does not believe that new prophecy and revelation reveals itself amongst their decision makers, then the decisions are being made on purely human grounds, which, in a church confessing the Triune God, is at best oxymoronic and at worst, base apostasy.
Kristofer Coffman ‘13 (coffman@stolaf.edu) is from Glendale, Calif. He majors in religion.
2 comments
I officially left my ELCA church after the ruling last summer, and it was not just due to the ordination of homosexuals, but because of the implications of this decision which put indicated that the ELCA was putting social pressures and norms about the authority of Scripture.
www.exposingtheelca.com