Apart from the Eastern Synod Convention’s approval of same-sex blessings being in defiance of the ELCIC’s constitution, there are deeper underlying theological issues involved. The latter was underscored by a lay member of the Alberta Synod in his recent submission to the National Church Council. He identified the larger theological issue as “the place and authority of the Old and New Testaments and the Lutheran Confessions in general, and the place and authority of the Law in particular, in the theology and practice of the ELCIC”. In his view, there is a “fork in the road” for those of us in the ELCIC leading to two different paths representing two irreconcilable theologies: “One choice is the vagueuncertain road that requires a redefinition of God and His relationship to man, based on nothing more than the personal opinions of convention participants. The other choice is the road that requires a return to the God of the Scriptures and the Confessions as understood and proclaimed throughout the history of the Church”.
August 25, 2006
Fork in the Road for the ELCIC
August 22, 2006
Bishop Raymond Schultz and Members of the National Church Council ("NCC") of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ("ELCIC")
Re: Eastern Synod Motion 1.1 to Permit Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19 NIVA review of the ELCIC constitution leaves little doubt that ESC Motion 1.1 is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of Synods in the ELCIC. Relevant portions of the ELCIC Constitution include Art II, Art III, Art IV 2i, Art IX 6c., Art X, Art XI 3.1, ELCIC Bylaws Part VII Section 10, Part X f., ELCIC National and Synodical Responsibilities - Synodical structures #3. The larger issue, however, is the place and authority of the Old and New Testaments and the Lutheran Confessions in general, and the place and authority of the Law in particular, in the theology and practice of the ELCIC.
The Law has been an integral component of God's relationship with man from Genesis through the Old and New Testaments, the Confessions up to the present day. Although the importance and reverence accorded the Law has decreased in the recent past, this lack of respect in no way diminishes the critical function the Law accomplishes in God's connection to man, nor the reality of the consequences of ignoring or disobeying the Law.
-The current conflict regarding ESC Motion 1.1 is a flashpoint for the debate within the ELCIC for the relative importance of the Law revealed in the Confessions, the Old and New Testaments ("the Scriptures") and personal spiritual revelation. It appears that at the recent Eastern Synod Convention ("ESC"), personal spiritual revelation or personal opinion is the preferred methodology of determining God's will in issues requiring theological discernment. This approach is demonstrated by the ESC's acceptance of the position that the ESC has the authority to overrule the ELCIC National Convention decision and determine fundamental faith issues by a simple majority of votes of those attending a single synod convention. ESC Motion 1.1 supports the notion of the primacy of personal opinion and personal revelation by placing all authority in the performance of an act that has never been performed in any orthodox Christian organization throughout recorded history, to the personal revelation and opinions of the pastor and 2/3 of congregational members attending a single congregational meeting.
Whereas an orthodox Lutheran Christian places Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures and the Confession, at the centre of his faith, it appears that personal revelation, coupled with the doctrine of the "acceptance and affirmation of the behavior of all people," has become the "new Christ" for those who choose to disregard the Scriptures, the Confessions and Christian Church history. The current struggle over Motion 1.1 is a mere symptom of a much more profound fracture in the foundation of the ELCIC between orthodox Christians and those who primarily depend on personal revelation. It is my belief that this widening fissure will eventually destroy the ELCIC as an organization and as a faithful manifestation of the Christian Church.
A further significant problem with the belittlement of the Law in the life of the ELCIC is the danger of supporting activities that contradict the will of God. For example, the blessing and affirmation of homosexual behavior is in direct conflict with several passages of the Scriptures. No portion of the Scriptures affirms homosexual behavior nor the blessing or affirming of same-sex unions. Based on the Scriptures, the church which is the community of believers, throughout recorded history has viewed homosexual behavior as sin. To the orthodox Lutheran Christian, the blessing of sin is abhorrent. Blessing or affirmation of sin stands in stark contrast to the truth and mission of Jesus Christ. The action of any organization that blesses or affirms behavior that Scriptures describes as an abomination and sinful act, is not the act of a church, but rather the act of an entity that could more accurately be described as the anti-church. Rather than seeking to spread God's Word and the truth of Jesus Christ, the anti-church perverts God's Word and distorts and seeks to destroy the truth of Jesus Christ. Such an institution not only has no place in the Christian church, but rather is an active enemy of the true Christian church.
The requirement for NCC to formulate a response to the ESC Motion 1.1 represents a fork in the road for the ELCIC. One choice is the vague uncertain road that requires a redefinition of God and His relationship to man, based on nothing more than the personal opinions of convention participants. The other choice is the road that requires a return to the God of the Scriptures and the Confessions as understood and proclaimed throughout the history of the Church. It is impossible to travel on both roads simultaneously. I believe that your decision on Motion 1.1 is one instance where each of you has an opportunity to help define the nature of God for the ELCIC. It is an opportunity to express the nature of the God in which you believe.
When you became a member of NCC, I believe you took an oath before assuming your position. In preparation for your September meeting, I urge you to revisit that oath and rediscover what authority and responsibility you have assumed, not only for your decision on ESC Motion 1.1, but also for your personal faith journey and the faith journeys of your fellow travelers in the ELCIC.
God Bless!
Keith R. Odegard
Calgary, Albertac.c. Advisory Members
