No method of resolving disputes within the church can function without the support of an underlying sensus fidelium, a common mind among the faithful. Even a teaching office on Roman Catholic lines can only settle disputes successfully if there is a shared perception that the office deserves respect. This can never be wholly a matter of recognizing the formal authority of the bishop or the Pope, as in the slogan “Rome has spoken ”“ case closed.” It has to include a perception that the actual decisions made by the teaching office reliably cohere with central Christian beliefs and practices. Only so can a sense be maintained that obedience to the teaching office is an authentic form of discipleship. But for that to be the case, the teachers and the faithful must share a common formation in faith and life. They can only meet, so to speak, if they live in the same Christian universe.
The root of our problems with authority in the ELCA, I would suggest, is the confusion, weakening, and consequent fragmentation of the sensus fidelium, the common mind of the faithful. This confusion and weakness are by no means all on one side. We’ve all been affected by the biblical illiteracy, thin catechesis, clueless educational programs, and unfocused preaching that are widespread (I’m not saying universal) in our denomination. Seeking scriptural resolution to a passionate controversy on top of such weakness, confusion, and fragmentation is like trying to ride up the glass mountain in the fairy tale: no matter how strong your theological horse or how well you ride it, you’re never going to get traction.
David Yeago is one of the finest theologians in South Carolina at the present time. I regret that I have not linked to this blog until today.
Thanks, Kendall… very helpful.
Yeago’s article, “The Bible,†in “Knowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church, eds. James J. Buckley and David S. Yeago” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), was very instrumental in helping me recognize how important is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Richard Hooker’s interpretation of Scripture. Yeago’s piece also underscored, for me, how woefully inadequte is the current model of dispersed authority in TEC.
The whole point of the Lutheran Confessions is to be that authority in the proper explanation and interpretation of the Scriptures, and to definitively state what we believe and what we reject. The LCMS accepts the Confessions “because” they are a proper explanation of the Scriptures, and that the Scripture “are” God’s Word. Some in the ELCA accept the Confessions “in so far as” they are a proper explanation of the Scriptures, and that the Scripture “contain” God’s Word. With the later you lose all authority, both of the Confessions and the Scriptures.
I think one of the weaknesses of the Lutheran Confessions is that we stopped with the Formula of Concord in 1577. Questions have obviously come up since then that some feel are not adequately answered in the Confessions. If you look at the development of the Confessions, they were more of a bottom up than a top down approach. Discussion occurred first. Then in the end a document was written, often by one person, that others rallied around and said “yes, that is correct”. Lutherans should have continued to discuss controversies as they come up, come to a conclusion of what is right, what is wrong, and what is adiaphora, and then added the conclusions to the Confession. Given the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Reformation, now would be a good time to start.