LIVING IN A NON-CONFORMING SYNOD

M. LUTHER JOHNSON

This synod has already claimed the right to accept a bishop who will not conform to the installation requirements of Called to Common Mission (CCM).

This act of mass resistance and non-conformity happened in an orderly manner at the summer of 2000 SW MN Synod Assembly when it adopted, by a count of votes, resolution 00.15. It includes the following assertion:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Southwestern Minnesota Synod of the ELCA support the right of its constituent members, congregations, seminarians, pastors, and bishops [emphasis added] to freely accept or reject local implementation of an historic episcopate"

The vote was 505 in favor 94 in opposition 13 Abstentions

What is so bold about this resolution?

First, it helps to know that most resolutions related to this issue in SW MN have "memorialized" (or requested) either the ELCA Church Council or Churchwide Assembly (CWA) to act on the issue. To "memorialize" is to pass the resolution on to the next level of church structure; it's a statement combined with a hope that people at the next level up will do the right thing on behalf of the whole church. However, there's no guarantee that further action will be taken. Moving on to the churchwide level, a resolution faces a variety of bureaucratic hurdles before it actually gets to its intended destination. So it goes in a large organization.

That's why there's something to be said for bold statements; for witnessing to one's faith; for making the courageous confession; for plainly stating what we believe — in spite of what the world pressures us to say. For example, if a native born pastor lovingly builds a ministry in the midst of a predominately Muslim city and in the shadow of an increasingly hostile government — people know what that pastor believes about God. If a newly elected synodical bishop who, in the presence of other life-long Lutherans, makes a statement through the form & content of his installation service — people will know what he believes about a bishop’s relationship to God and God’s people.

Resolution 00.15 makes a bold statement on behalf of a synod. It does not memorialize. It plainly says this synod will support a bishop who, for reasons of conscience or theology, accepts or rejects the historic episcopate. Here we stand: These are options of equal standing and a bishop who exercises either option will remain in good standing (at least in this synod).

The issue here is choice; agreeing to disagree. But the law of the ELCA is: We don’t have a choice and we cannot disagree. Well, we still respectfully disagree. Hence we live and worship in a non-conforming synod. While the rest of the ELCA which has been "living into" CCM since it took effect on January 1, 2001, the people of the SW MN Synod have been "living into" the non-conformity of Resolution 00.15. Life goes on.

Whoever is elected as the next bishop, if he truly wishes to empower the laity and the pastors, he would do well to work to make room for their values in the synod & the entire ELCA — especially when they are advocating for values & practices that were considered standard Lutheran fare up until the adoption of CCM.

MAKING STATEMENTS. Another resolution on the issue of the historic episcopate was passed at the recent Conference Assemblies of Crow River, Glacial Ridge, and Great River which memorializes the SW MN Synod Assembly to adopt it and, in turn, memorializes the CWA to adopt it. It's name is "Commending The Freedom to Receive or Reject the HistoricEpiscopate." Adopting it would simply make yet another clear statement which is consistent with past statements on this issue.

Also, if we happen to elect a non-conforming bishop, we will simply be continuing the process of "living into" our synod's non-conformity. Then we can wonder what kind of statements our new bishop will make to us and to the rest of the ELCA for the next six years.