|
Southwest
Minnesota |
I C M |
||
     |
|||
|
Newsletter |
|||
|
4 views on CCM
Regarding
CCM, I think the ELCA is divided into four groups.
(1) The smallest group is those who like the concept, practice and theology of the historic episcopacy. They believe that ecumenism for Lutherans must eventually mean some kind of reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. They dislike the fragmentation of Protestantism wish for some kind of magesterium or teaching authority, preferably among theologically trained bishops. The practice and theology of the historic episcopacy is appealing because it identifies the office of bishop as that office which carries the continuity from and fidelity to the ancient church and its traditions.
(2) Most CCM supporters fall into the second group. Because the Episcopalians require the historic episcopacy for full communion and because we Lutherans have traditionally been flexible on matters of ministry, they argue that we should adopt it as an ecumenical gesture. This group believes CCM carries no accompanying theological consequences. This is the argument of the ELCA bishops’ Tucson Resolutions in March 1999. This view is characterized by the statement, “We just do it, we don’t have to believe it.” Because they do not believe theologically that adherence to the practice of historic episcopacy is really necessary for ordained ministry in the ELCA, they are willing to grant exceptions to ordination exclusively by bishops.
(3) The third group is the largest throughout the ELCA, namely those who really don’t care and probably haven’t bothered to read CCM. What bishops are and who puts whose hand on whose head is a tempest in a teapot, they believe. They figure it won’t affect congregational life, so why bother? “It’s a clergy thing,” a layperson said to me. A pastor told me, “CCM is stupid, but I have far more important things to do in my parish, so why get involved?”
(4) The fourth group (where I find myself) believes that the idea of bishops as the center of the church and the chief form of ordained office will now creep into our theology. We adopted the term “historic episcopacy,” its rules, its liturgies, and we changed our constitution. If rules, liturgy and constitutions shape theology, we are now on that path. Flexibility is gone and we are now locked into a uniform system (except for the rare seminary seniors brave enough to risk angering a bishop by requesting exceptional ordination). The practice of the historic episcopacy IS a theological statement. CCM sharpens the distinction between laity and clergy (watch how lay licensing will now become a more debatable practice) and the office of bishop has been elevated well above that of parish pastor (watch the difference between a pastor’s ordination and a bishop’s installation).
There are very fine people in all four groups. The political struggle ended in 1999, but the theological struggle for the soul of our church is just beginning. It’s a crucial time for people become informed and involved!
Michael Rogness is professor at Luther Seminary
St. Paul, Mn
