I.C.M. - SW MN WordAlone

“It Could Have Been Worse”

Dennis Bielfeldt

People in the upper Midwest have an expression that applies to situations that, although not good, are nonetheless tolerable. In accepting the inevitable, they say, “It could have been worse.” The phrase nicely expresses the attitude of Scandinavian stoicism in the face of things that can’t be changed. “Yes, I have colon cancer, but it could be worse. I might have gotten it in my liver as well.” One must be thankful for what one has, I guess.

Lately, I have heard the phrase used in connection with the recommendations of the ELCA Task Force concerning the blessing of committed same-sex relationships and ordaining people in such relationships. Yes, the Task Force Report allows for “pastoral discretion” in changing the practices of the ELCA, but “it could have been worse.” After all, the ELCA could have voted to change the policy as well. One must be thankful for what one has, I guess.

But while it may be generally virtuous to count one’s blessings and not whine about what one cannot change, I do not believe this virtue should be cultivated with respect to the teachings and practices of one’s church. Either this can be changed, or one can change churches. But, lamentably, faithful long-time ELCA Lutherans are being placed in the position of having to thank God that things are no worse than they are. At least the Task Force report is not liver cancer.

But why should one be forced to put up with colon cancer? Why should faithful Lutherans accept that “pastoral discretion” decides if, when and where traditional standards of pastoral sexual conduct are transgressed? What gives pastors and bishops special insight to know when enforcement of Visions and Expectations is proper and when it is not? In the absence of clear criteria, such “discretion” becomes either subjective caprice or an immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit (“enthusiasm”). Lutherans traditionally avoid both.

Everyone should recall the Task Force’s recommendations:

Because the unity of the ELCA is “at least as important” as this issue upon which “faithful, conscience-bound Lutherans find themselves so decisively at odds,” the ELCA should find “ways to live together faithfully in the midst of . . . disagreements.”

The ELCA should respect the pastoral guidance of the 1993 Conference of Bishops.

The ELCA should retain the standards of Visions and Expectations, but allow for the church to “refrain from disciplining those who in good conscience... call or approve partnered gay or lesbian candidates...”

But these recommendations are deeply flawed. They are, in fact, recommendations from a desperate Task Force trying to fashion a compromise solution in the midst of an avalanche of opposition.

Recommendation I begs the question. It assumes that unity within the ELCA is of equal or greater importance than issues of conscience that divide people within it. But why should one assume this? Why is the ELCA so infatuated with manifesting visible, organic unity? Has not the Lutheran tradition been to stand upon Scripture and confessions even when it means that one is not united visibly? What has become of the great Lutheran insight that the true church is hidden, that it is principally “an association of faith and Holy Spirit in the hearts of persons,” (Apology, Art. VII), an association that is exhibited most clearly in those gatherings around Word and Sacrament known as congregations.

The fundamental problem with the ELCA has been, and continues to be, its confusion about the nature of ‘church’. While the ELCA grants itself being as “church,” good Lutheran theology privileges the congregation as the place where the hidden church is most manifest, and thus understands the national “church” administratively as a set of relations defined upon the set of congregations. Accordingly, the most meaningful church-division is at the congregational level. Since historic associations of congregations do not comprise “church,” they can be changed without affecting “church unity.”

Recommendation II is ambiguous. While it permits pastoral discretion so as to “surround same-sex couples with prayerful support,” what this is to mean is not specified. On one hand, all Christians clearly ought to surround everyone with prayerful support. On the other hand, the phrase could be construed as compatible with blessing same-sex couples in a liturgical context.

Finally, Recommendation III is duplicitous. While apparently affirming the prohibitions of Visions and Expectations, the Report nonetheless establishes the possibility of general discretionary pastoral practices not consonant with what is affirmed. It allows in practice what it rejects in theory.

Could it be worse? Would it be worse to recommend openly the blessing of same sex relationships and the calling of pastors in those relationships? I am not sure it is. At least that recommendation would have clarity. It would give synods and churchwide something definite upon which to vote. The current recommendations make the issue no longer at issue. I would rather know I had liver cancer and try to treat it, than think I might have colon cancer, but never be sure.

Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt is Professor of Philosophy and Religion, SDSU, Brookings, SD

and a member of the Board for WordAlone