Jacobson, J. Robert

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 17Issue 1 Adult Education Article 105-1-1991Toward a more responsive process for formulatingstatements of the Lutheran churchJ. Robert JacobsonFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Studies and Observations is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion inConsensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationJacobson, J. Robert (1991) "Toward a more responsive process for formulating statements of the Lutheran church," Consensus: Vol. 17: Iss. 1 , Article 10.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol17/iss1/10Toward A More ResponsiveProcess for FormulatingStatements of the Lutheran ChurchJ. Robert JacobsonBishop, Synod of Alberta and the Territories,Evangelical Lutheran Church In CanadaTraditionally, Christians have spoken of the “teaching au-thority” or the magisterium of the church. It derives from Je-sus’ command to the apostles to “teach (disciples of all nations)to keep all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19), andfrom Paul’s charge to Timothy to hand on to others intactthe sound teaching that has been entrusted to him (2 Timothy1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14-4:5; etc.). Both in the Pastoral Epistles andin John’s gospel (e.g., 14:26; 16:13) this is seen to be the workof the Holy Spirit within the church and within each faithfulmember.There are several ways of approaching this task. For East-ern Christianity it means, essentially, that nothing can bechanged, only clarified if necessary. Coptic Christians are es-pecially proud of their past thirteen centuries of unchangedtradition and liturgy. No one can deny the depth and vitalityof faith that can result from such an approach.The Western tradition operates on a different premise.Since Jesus promised that after his departure the Holy Spiritwould lead the apostles into all truth, new interpretations oftruth can emerge over time in response to new situations. ForRoman Catholics the consensus of the successors of the apostles(i.e., the bishops) in communion with the successor of Peter,the chief apostle (i.e., the Bishop of Rome), is the guaranteethat the Holy Spirit is indeed leading the church in the truth-seeking process, just as Jesus promised.Because of their experience of the late medieval papacy, theLutheran reformers rejected this view as inadequate. Even so,they did not adopt the view of some Protestants who seem tobelieve that the Holy Spirit just as infallibly operates through118 Consensusthe processes of egalitarian democracy in the hands of a bu-reaucratic oligarchy. Therefore, we need to ask the questionhow one might characterize a Lutheran approach to the “teach-ing office”.I believe that there are three essential components thatmust each be given adequate weight in any process leadingto a teaching statement from our church. They are all derivedfrom our understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in thechurch.1 Our commitment to Scripture, the ecumenical creeds, andthe Lutheran confessions;2 Our commitment to the teaching role of the ordained min-istry; and^ Our commitment to the role of the entire laos in testing thetruth of the church’s teaching before it can be fully receivedas God’s will.There will always be some awkwardness in according properweight to each of these components in any one process, but wehave to keep trying. It is tempting to oversimplify. Some peo-ple are alarmed at the suggestion that we need anything morethan commitment to Scripture and confessions; in their view,all issues worth addressing are already settled and only a fewproof-texts need be adduced. Others believe that the teach-ing office of the ordained is all we need: Just turn controver-sial issues over to a small committee of theological professors,bishops, or executives and the results will be reliable. Still oth-ers have boundless confidence in the truthfulness of the currentmajority opinion among the laity of the church, and that shouldsettle everything.For my part, I see disaster lurking in any attempt to reducethe role of any of these three components in the process offormulating our church’s teaching statements. Surely our earlyattempts to deal with abortion and sacramental practices havetaught us this much. Let’s try to envision a process that givesdue weight to each component.First of all, we are a confessing church. This means that weare not free to approach contemporary issues as if there wereno Triune God, no saving Gospel, no inspired Scriptures toserve as “the only source of the church’s doctrine and the au-thoritative standard for [its] faith and life,” and no confessionalwitness to the correct understanding of the Gospel.Formulating Statements 119In this day and age, as in any other, a church that operateswith these unalterable principles (Evangelical Lutheran ChurchIn Canada Constitution, XVIII, 1) cannot even entertain thepossibility of taking any position that renders the authorityof Scripture secondary to something else. At the close of the1989 ELCIC convention in Saskatoon we were warned about“biblicism”, and rightly so. Biblicism is how the devil twistedScripture to support his cause (Matthew 4:1-11). The useJesus made of Scripture in response to Satan is not biblicism.As a church we are committed to the proper use of Scriptureand to obedience to the Word of God when we have heard it,irrespective of how it may clash with the norms of the societyin which we live. Any person who is not prepared to do thisbelongs in another part of Christ’s church, one that does notshare our confession of faith.Working from this basic perspective, here’s how I would seeour church develop position statements on social issues, moralquestions, and worship practices:The first task is to define the issue being addressed. Thiscan be done by a convention of the church, by the nationalChurch Council, or by the appropriate division of the church.The proper division then solicits input from every possi-ble sector of the church, with the stated purpose of gatheringand sharing the insights and experiences of all. The division’sresponsibility at this point is to provide a forum for the fullinterchange of perspectives among all the church’s members sothat the entire church has access to the insights of everyone.The division, therefore, collates and distributes all responsesas they are submitted] if summaries are used, they must notdistort either the content or the relative balance of views ex-pressed.Everyone is asked to study carefully and prayerfully all thecollated responses and then to address this key question: Onthe basis of what you have learned from the submissions ofothers, is there anything in your original submission which youwould now wish to modify or change?The division then draws up a proposed “Statement” basedon the revised submissions. A group of theologians, bishops,pastors, and lay leaders then would work through this docu-ment and might modify it. The division approves the statement120 Consensusin the form in which it is to be transmitted to the conventionfor action and shares it with the whole church.The foregoing process may seem cumbersome, but it hasmuch to commend it. No elite group can prevent full and freecommunication among all members of the church as collectivelywe open ourselves to one another and seek the mind of Christ.At the same time, those who are entrusted with the teachingoffice in a special way have opportunity to exercise that trustat a critical juncture, but not in secret. Everyone can see whatmaterial they received and what they did with it. The churchin convention can decide the final shape and content of theofficial statement.We all need to trust that the surest approach to a God-pleasing exercise of the teaching authority of the church isone that promotes the fullest and freest interchange among allGod’s people within the context of our Scriptural and confes-sional commitments. Whether the subject is abortion, sacra-mental practices, human sexuality, or ministry in the church,we have nothing to fear and everything to gain from such anapproach.

Toward a more responsive process for formulating statements of the Lutheran church

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 17
Issue 1 Adult Education Article 10
5-1-1991
Toward a more responsive process for formulating
statements of the Lutheran church
J. Robert Jacobson
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Studies and Observations is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Consensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Jacobson, J. Robert (1991) "Toward a more responsive process for formulating statements of the Lutheran church," Consensus: Vol. 17
: Iss. 1 , Article 10.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol17/iss1/10
Toward A More Responsive
Process for Formulating
Statements of the Lutheran Church
J. Robert Jacobson
Bishop, Synod of Alberta and the Territories,
Evangelical Lutheran Church In Canada
Traditionally, Christians have spoken of the “teaching au-
thority” or the magisterium of the church. It derives from Je-
sus’ command to the apostles to “teach (disciples of all nations)
to keep all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19), and
from Paul’s charge to Timothy to hand on to others intact
the sound teaching that has been entrusted to him (2 Timothy
1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14-4:5; etc.). Both in the Pastoral Epistles and
in John’s gospel (e.g., 14:26; 16:13) this is seen to be the work
of the Holy Spirit within the church and within each faithful
member.
There are several ways of approaching this task. For East-
ern Christianity it means, essentially, that nothing can be
changed, only clarified if necessary. Coptic Christians are es-
pecially proud of their past thirteen centuries of unchanged
tradition and liturgy. No one can deny the depth and vitality
of faith that can result from such an approach.
The Western tradition operates on a different premise.
Since Jesus promised that after his departure the Holy Spirit
would lead the apostles into all truth, new interpretations of
truth can emerge over time in response to new situations. For
Roman Catholics the consensus of the successors of the apostles
(i.e., the bishops) in communion with the successor of Peter,
the chief apostle (i.e., the Bishop of Rome), is the guarantee
that the Holy Spirit is indeed leading the church in the truth-
seeking process, just as Jesus promised.
Because of their experience of the late medieval papacy, the
Lutheran reformers rejected this view as inadequate. Even so,
they did not adopt the view of some Protestants who seem to
believe that the Holy Spirit just as infallibly operates through
118 Consensus
the processes of egalitarian democracy in the hands of a bu-
reaucratic oligarchy. Therefore, we need to ask the question
how one might characterize a Lutheran approach to the “teach-
ing office”.
I believe that there are three essential components that
must each be given adequate weight in any process leading
to a teaching statement from our church. They are all derived
from our understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in the
church.
1 Our commitment to Scripture, the ecumenical creeds, and
the Lutheran confessions;
2 Our commitment to the teaching role of the ordained min-
istry; and
^ Our commitment to the role of the entire laos in testing the
truth of the church’s teaching before it can be fully received
as God’s will.
There will always be some awkwardness in according proper
weight to each of these components in any one process, but we
have to keep trying. It is tempting to oversimplify. Some peo-
ple are alarmed at the suggestion that we need anything more
than commitment to Scripture and confessions; in their view,
all issues worth addressing are already settled and only a few
proof-texts need be adduced. Others believe that the teach-
ing office of the ordained is all we need: Just turn controver-
sial issues over to a small committee of theological professors,
bishops, or executives and the results will be reliable. Still oth-
ers have boundless confidence in the truthfulness of the current
majority opinion among the laity of the church, and that should
settle everything.
For my part, I see disaster lurking in any attempt to reduce
the role of any of these three components in the process of
formulating our church’s teaching statements. Surely our early
attempts to deal with abortion and sacramental practices have
taught us this much. Let’s try to envision a process that gives
due weight to each component.
First of all, we are a confessing church. This means that we
are not free to approach contemporary issues as if there were
no Triune God, no saving Gospel, no inspired Scriptures to
serve as “the only source of the church’s doctrine and the au-
thoritative standard for [its] faith and life,” and no confessional
witness to the correct understanding of the Gospel.
Formulating Statements 119
In this day and age, as in any other, a church that operates
with these unalterable principles (Evangelical Lutheran Church
In Canada Constitution, XVIII, 1) cannot even entertain the
possibility of taking any position that renders the authority
of Scripture secondary to something else. At the close of the
1989 ELCIC convention in Saskatoon we were warned about
“biblicism”, and rightly so. Biblicism is how the devil twisted
Scripture to support his cause (Matthew 4:1-11). The use
Jesus made of Scripture in response to Satan is not biblicism.
As a church we are committed to the proper use of Scripture
and to obedience to the Word of God when we have heard it,
irrespective of how it may clash with the norms of the society
in which we live. Any person who is not prepared to do this
belongs in another part of Christ’s church, one that does not
share our confession of faith.
Working from this basic perspective, here’s how I would see
our church develop position statements on social issues, moral
questions, and worship practices:
The first task is to define the issue being addressed. This
can be done by a convention of the church, by the national
Church Council, or by the appropriate division of the church.
The proper division then solicits input from every possi-
ble sector of the church, with the stated purpose of gathering
and sharing the insights and experiences of all. The division’s
responsibility at this point is to provide a forum for the full
interchange of perspectives among all the church’s members so
that the entire church has access to the insights of everyone.
The division, therefore, collates and distributes all responses
as they are submitted] if summaries are used, they must not
distort either the content or the relative balance of views ex-
pressed.
Everyone is asked to study carefully and prayerfully all the
collated responses and then to address this key question: On
the basis of what you have learned from the submissions of
others, is there anything in your original submission which you
would now wish to modify or change?
The division then draws up a proposed “Statement” based
on the revised submissions. A group of theologians, bishops,
pastors, and lay leaders then would work through this docu-
ment and might modify it. The division approves the statement
120 Consensus
in the form in which it is to be transmitted to the convention
for action and shares it with the whole church.
The foregoing process may seem cumbersome, but it has
much to commend it. No elite group can prevent full and free
communication among all members of the church as collectively
we open ourselves to one another and seek the mind of Christ.
At the same time, those who are entrusted with the teaching
office in a special way have opportunity to exercise that trust
at a critical juncture, but not in secret. Everyone can see what
material they received and what they did with it. The church
in convention can decide the final shape and content of the
official statement.
We all need to trust that the surest approach to a God-
pleasing exercise of the teaching authority of the church is
one that promotes the fullest and freest interchange among all
God’s people within the context of our Scriptural and confes-
sional commitments. Whether the subject is abortion, sacra-
mental practices, human sexuality, or ministry in the church,
we have nothing to fear and everything to gain from such an
approach.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1916&amp;context=consensus

Toward a more responsive process for formulating statements of the Lutheran church

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons