A 1992 analysis of the Faith and Vision Statements of the Great Commission Network, a prominent Lutheran renewal group. By Robert Longman.

Part 1 : Faith Statement.

A personal note :
Please, realize that by doing this analysis, I am neither condemning nor endorsing the organization involved. I suspect that I have strong common grounds with them, but then I would hope that I also have strong common ground with the rest of my ELCA and indeed the rest of the Christian church, too. I am merely giving one person's perspective on what shows up in the definitive written materials of a Lutheran renewal group : things that made me think about how the Spirit is renewing the church and where the Spirit bids us to go, and what the term 'renewal' means or has come to mean. I too sense the need for the reawakening of the church, an arousal to a purpose it no longer holds dear. I hope that by looking at a renewal group's attempt to articulate its faith and its vision, we all can gain further insight and new clarity.

Faith Statement, para. 1 : The Trinity
Well, GCN's not fundamentalist. Fundies generally place the paragraph on the Bible somewhere in the first few lines, sometimes even before God. GCN, in a definitively Lutheran fashion, holds it off till para. 3. The first para is standard Trinitarian, using the traditional terms "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". But then, so does the ELCA Confession Of Faith (2.01). (Note : NOT 'Ghost'. This is no pack of ethnic throwbacks, either. I still remember great-grandma's "Heeli Jeest".)

Para. 2 : Jesus Christ
A fairly standard expression of belief in Jesus and about salvation by grace through faith.

What is not addressed here is the tendency of some Lutherans (like some Calvinists and some evangelicals) to focus on Jesus Christ so much that the Holy Spirit is slighted. GCN and the ELCA both need to be clearer in its teaching about the Spirit, treating it within the Faith statements in some way beyond just its role in operating through Scripture, more than just as a shorthand personification of God's support for the church. GCN has no excuses, since the charismatic folks at North Heights-Arden Hills MN are members.

Para. 3 : Scripture
Thankfully, the terms 'inerrant' and 'infallible' were not used by GCN; again, this is not a pack of fundies. Yet, this paragraph doesn't even begin to address what the ELCA tried to with its threefold-Word statement. There is much more that can and must be asserted about the unique nature, role, and authority of Scripture, and GCNers need to elucidate that more-ness better than they do here, and better than in the ELCA's official statement which is OK but not nearly complete or accurate enough. If renewal groups are to be identified by anything, it is by a thorough understanding of the rightful role of Scripture in the church in the face of churchly attempts to wriggle out from it.

I myself would also make Scripture's role clearer by calling it the authoritative source and norm for the Church *and its members*; each of us have to get steeped in it so as to have it soak into our very core **'as people'**, as well as **'as a people'**. Your normal thirty-something person, churched or unchurched, thinks Melchizedek used to pitch for the White Sox. They're not steeped in the Bible; God's ways as found in it don't course through their minds. That's the key theological failure of our times, our generation's missing link; that's the only way we can have more than the vaguest inkling of where God bids us to go and what God commands us to do / be.

Para. 4 : the Church
A sharp statement as to what GCN sees as the central mission of the Church : leading the non-believer to become disciples of Christ. GCN doesn't dampen or deflect that purpose with ELCA mumbo-jumbo about global awareness (I think that such awareness is a good thing, but it is not core to the Church's purpose, and shouldn't be mentioned when stating core purposes, lest the real issues be clouded).

One of the theological points often missed by renewalists is that the social dimension of our witness is one of the key validations of the faith in the eyes of unbelievers. ( A 'validation' is something which brings the non-Christian to wonder whether there might be truth to this Gospel stuff. Some other key validations : presence / availability; empathy / solidarity; vision / celebration; truthfulness / challenge; orthodoxy / orthopraxis; vision-sharing / evangelism.) Faith Statement Para. 5 and the Vision Statement are supposed to clarify this, but they do so in a weak way (see Vision comments in the next few notes).

We can't say "Jesus loves you" to someone and ignore their plight. They think, 'well, if Jesus loves me, then why am I in the state I'm in?' The God we speak of is thus seen as a fraud, when the only fraud is us. But when we can really care inside of ourselves (that's more than 'showing' we care, which is often fraudulent), and act from that love in accord with God's Word, people can recognize the Suffering Servant we serve, and know that God (and we) suffer from their suffering. This dimension is too easily glossed over by many renewalists as 'service'. It's much more fundamental than that, it's part and parcel of the changed heart which the Spirit creates and the Church shapes. The sharing of the Good News itself is evangelism, but justice is one of many things which demonstrates the Good-ness of that Good News. This is a part of the Church's job.

Please also note that the GCN mentions nowhere in its faith or vision statements anything about the sacraments or the sacramental role in renewing the church(es). This is understandable, since the historical roots of most GCN member congregations is in Lutheran pietism, which historically has deemphasized the sacraments while still holding to them in a Lutheran manner. I think this heritage has to be heard more clearly in forming ELCA personal and community piety, but it needs to learn more about how worship and sacrament shape the Christian heart as the Word would have it be.


Para. 5 : Witness To Contemporary Culture
Here's where the GCN states the currents which led to its formation in the first place. It is here which they (and also I, in a different way) feel that the ELCA is starting to show its loss of bearings. It is also where simplisms are inevitable, due to the compact format of such statements and the desire to allow some degree of freedom within the organization (by avoiding fixing things in fine detail).
(1) "we view sexual intercourse as designed by God for marriage alone". This phrase is a simplism; it does not answer, for instance, the question of when a sexually-oriented relationship turns into a marriage, or what the Scriptures *really* say about sex. It fills the purpose at hand with a basic statement which as such I am in total agreement with (as a single Christian). This is what the core of the church's marital teaching must be. But recognize it for the simplism it is.
(2) "that any sexual intercourse outside the heterosexual design of God is inconsistent with God's Word." This, of course, is based as much on unstated traditions as on "God's Word". I think it also expresses the fact that the church has neglected its task of asserting God's design for chastity in marriage and celibacy in singleness, defiance of which produces spiritual and temporal havoc. The other question, though, is whether GCN will also work to defend the rights that homosexuals have as people (and as Americans) not to be beaten or abused, nor to be restricted in their roles in American society as a whole solely on the basis of a homosexual orientation. That too is a Christian responsibility, and I feel it must be asserted every bit as clearly as the wrongness of homosexual 'sex'. That's not now being done.
(3) "racism is in violation of God's will." OK. But what do we *do* about it -- as people, churches, denominations, and as politically-vested responsible Americans ? GCN doesn't have to present an action plan here, but it does have to look at everything it says/does to see to it that there is no overt or covert racism in it. That doesn't necessarily mean accepting a particular piece of political agenda, for most matters are far too complex to define solely or even primarily on the racial question. But race comes into play to some limited extent in nearly every public issue, to a great extent in most key public issues, and determinatively in a handful of crucial ones. How are the renewal movements going to deal with it ? I have yet to see evidence of any real vision for combatting racism in church or society from renewal sources. And many blacks who are otherwise quite sympathetic to renewal are driven away and disspirited. What a missed opportunity !!!
(4) "and we reject attempts to eliminate masculine references for God when the original texts require them." I heartily agree; one should not tamper with the content of the ancients, they must be allowed to speak for themselves. Any fine-tuning must be done by our own tres-moderne ears. The key here is "when the original texts require them." The New RSV handles it well, and sets a fine example. The inclusive lectionary did its job, namely to sensitize us to the issue of our own un-Scriptural sexualizing of the first and third persons of the Trinity and to our representing the human race by way of male terms; it should now be retired into the dust of history.

To recap the issues covered in GCN's "Witness to Contemporary Culture" : pre-/extramarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, racism, drugs, and inclusive language. The hot-button kind of matters. If GCN or any other renewal group really wants to know how to succeed at the task of renewal, it must do what is so rarely done by those seeking to renew the church :

**** have a clear identity beyond the sphere of hot-button issues ****.

For it is in the less-intense facets of the church that people find their identity.

Robert Longman



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Vision Statement, para.s 1 & 6 :
"To work within the ELCA"; "to encourage and support the leadership of the ELCA in those ministries and programs that are faithful to the Church's Biblical and confessional stance". Hmmmm. That seems to be a problem for most renewal groups. They tend to become special-interest parties within national politics (witness Good News with the IRD) or internal politics (the pre-merger Presbyterian group PUBC or several of the many Episcopal groups). If that is what GCN is or will become, it would be best for all if they folded right now. If it chooses to be a mere faction, then it will, should, and **had better** fail. Political groups for infighting will inevitably lead to the kinds of divisiveness and exclusionism found in the LCMS or the Southern Baptists, where church renewal was set back in both cases on all sides.

A better example is Presbyterians For Renewal, which seeks renewal throughout church life from all races and both sexes (though black involvement could use improvement), knows and understands the core piety of its church, and (usually) interprets its political role in terms of the church's core faith instead of vice-versa. Thus, the stunning and thorough defeat of the Human Sexuality Report, and PCUSA's acceptance of a clear Call To Evangelism. Dick Lovelace and Clayton Bell deserve much credit for helping to set PFR's reconciliatory tone.

Since we all have a stake in a renewed church (except the politicos), renewal movements must reject the role of factionalism, and must never seek to 'take over' and 'get our people in'. Stand up for God, but not via an "us vs. them" mentality. The objective is not to *force* the church forward, but to *lead* it there, by truth not by churchly sleight-of-hand.

To that end, they must remember that whether they like what a church program is doing or not, it is nonetheless a program of the church. It is thus not something to be 'prophetically' attacked, but convinced to change. For instance, I think that the Church In Society office should be concentrating on developing Christian citizens' lobbies/ grass roots advocates/ community-based ministries, and on networking and developing / spreading information in a way that is useful to the *full* political spectrum of concerned Lutherans, and on *continual* consensus-building approaches, and much less on trying the absurd task of speaking politically for the whole church, or on the bureau itself 'advocating' in a manner which through the normal effects of political socialization eventually breeds captivity to a particular political / ideological faction's way of thinking. And I mince no words in saying so. There are those who think otherwise; I think their political analysis is very faulty, but I respect them as Christians who are genuinely concerned and who are seeking to obey as Matthew 25 says we must. They *don't* need to be 'spoken to prophetically', they need to be shown where their approach fails and where another succeeds for the task at hand. One needs to 'speak prophetically' to those who **lack** an honest concern for the poor and racially oppressed! Does GCN have the will to do that to those of said description within their own ranks *as well as* those in church governance ?? Unless they are, para.s 1 & 6 are mere words, and mere words on churchly matters are violative of the commandment not to bear false witness. As a confessional Christian, that would concern me greatly.

Vision, para. 2 :
"1,000,000 new members by 2010 AD". A laugher. But better is their restatement of the goal : for each parish to average five more new members per year than it loses, over the next 20 years. A bit much, even for a goal where the objective is to aim high. But then, there are far, far more than enough non-believers out there around every one of our suburban and urban parishes to overcome even severe population shrinkage. This goal is not so far-fetched as it sounds, but we'd have to accept no excuses. The problem is, we *won't* do it, even if we could. We're Lutherans, after all, and Lutherans have usually seriously underplayed the importance of evangelism because of our culture and our misunderstanding our own baptismal theology. Evangelism's just not our style.

*************** To hell with our damned style !!!!!! ******************

Vision, Para. 3 :
The only thing I don't like about this mission paragraph is that it still reflects the mentality of "sending" missionaries. Instead, have each congregation (or small group of congregations) teaming with a congregation or mission located in a world mission field, with a missionary *exchange*, each 'called' for a specific purpose. "Sending" is only appropriate where there is no indigenous church (very few places qualify for that nowadays), or where the indigenous church is too small, young, oppressed, or fragmented to take part in such a venture. "Partners in support" is a meaningless term unless there is full recognition that we need *their* support too.
**Within such a framework**, 5000 missionaries by 2010 AD would be an extremely laudable goal. Make it more than talk, though, and *don't* take the Division of Global Missions to be an enemy to the task.

Vision, Para. 4 :
Does this mean that GCN will encourage member congregations to support local hospices, to serve on hospice boards and as volunteers, and to support formation of hospices where there are none ? And to minister to the needs of AIDS patients ?? ** I hope so. **

Vision, para. 5 :
Does this mean that the GCN will actively advocate that the ELCA form or support crisis pregnancy ministries and abused women shelters in every parish which is not served ? ****I hope so.**** And I hope that GCN pursues the openings on abortion given by the Minneapolis Synod, which recently voted to support "positive alternatives to abortion for women and couples in an unplanned pregnancy", and the Florida Synod, which asked CIS to develop "clear Christian guidelines" to help those making decisions involving abortion. Hopefully any concerned Christian pro-choice or pro-life, should at the very least support the clear urging of a choice other than abortion, and this can be done with a program to provide or make possible, say, feeding and maternal medical care, day care, educational assistance, job search, pre-natal medical care, shelter, spiritual counseling, and adoption. But then, Lutheran social service groups are already providing many of these services, for *all* women not just for those in crisis pregnancy; so are Catholic Charities, evangelical congregations, and state agencies. Where there are not such services for all, they will have to be created. Perhaps all such care can be networked and 'packaged' to make the alternative offerings much easier and more complete. We all should seek full denominational support for such an approach, as the very least we can do in a nation where abortion is currently legal. After that, *then* we can more honestly urge that we call on the world's governments to do *more* than 'at the very least'.



Vision Statement, para. 7 :
A laudable affirmation of the need for the church to pray, to pray together, and to pray with wholehearted intensity for church and family.
But we shouldn't laud them; we should all instead *pray with* them.

One warning though. It'll take more than to "establish a nationwide prayer network" and to hold marriage seminars for "family devotional life" to be strengthened. We need no more pious pronouncements bemoaning the decay of family life -- indeed, I suggest that we **cut that sort of talk entirely out** of what we say, because we'd just be telling people what they already full well know and are sick and tired of hearing. We as the Christian church, as the Lutheran denominational family, as the ELCA, and as whatever renewal group we are in, need to develop and articulate a clear **vision** for family life and a clear vision of community (for both the 'body of Christ' organism and for the sphere of earthly life each of us live in). If we don't develop, articulate, and **live by** such vision, our family lives will be ripped apart in the face of the world's frankly anti-family atomisms. And our world will have no idea what it means to be loved by people who love as by God's love. They just won't be able to relate to it.

The question that's begged By GCN's statement is this : What will GCN do to help create that vision? Whatever one thinks of the PCUSA's sexuality task force, it had a vision *and* articulated it. Their statement powerfully (though wrongheadedly) spoke to the gaps in the church's understanding of human sexuality, and owned up to some of the real-life questions that the churches have avoided or have chosen not to commit about. Must the fringe left always be the ones taking the initiative? Or will people who operate with Scripture eyes and the Spirit's guidance have the guts to walk through the minefield and lead our people forward ?

Kids from functional, intact families do much better in school, earn more money sooner, are less likely to commit crimes, and are more likely to themselves make intact homes -- family strength is the main statistically significant factor. Where the parents are committed Christians and have a family devotional life, the children follow suit -- again, it's clearly the most significant factor for producing a wholistic, well-orbed faith in the children, according to the Lilly study. The renewal of family is at the core of any renewal of the church as well as being central to the health of the society we live in. The church can't let this one slip by. So, prepare materials -- not for GCN Newsletter but for churches, for *the Lutheran*, for direct mail to relevant church leaders, for study groups at parishes, maybe even for Aug/Fort publishing, even eventually for the general media (but only once the rest of the effort is already in full swing). Bring in people who know what they're doing, read the Search Institute stuff, and look all over for examples of what works, wherever it is. But *do it*.

Vision, para. 7/8/9/10 :
These paragraphs all have to do with communications. But it seems to me that GCN is not nearly ambitious enough, that it's too worried about the bucks and about how to keep control/track of things. Are conferences and the monthly newsletter enough networking ? ***** No way.***** More importantly, it is not the more important kind of networking that a movement needs for it to grow. The secret word here is "PRO-ACTIVE". GCN, like any other such movement, must be asked : Do you have a phone budget? A PC? Are you linked to members' faxes? ECUNET and LUTHERLINK? Are GCNers trying to write articles to the Lutheran, Lutheran Forum, Lutheran Quarterly, Christian Century, Christianity Today?? Can people readily find other members' addresses/phones/faxes/inboxes so they can do their own networking, especially if moving? Are you scanning religious magazines and newspapers for interesting authors, teachers, ministries or active local congregations (and researching to find addresses, phone numbers, etc.) to make contact with? Lutheran or otherwise ?? Is anyone functioning as a volunteer 'networker', with the sole task of making/ maintaining contacts for the movement and its members? And seeking FEEDBACK, especially from skilled members who may not have the fame but have the insight or ability??? This is all essential to the task of building and nurturing a network or a movement. It will grow much faster and stronger by going out to others rather than waiting for the rare event of others coming to them. The movement may need to ask people to volunteer time/effort/equipment/money -- good!! Networking is slow, but pro-active networking is faster, more complete, and more effective.



There are essential things *not* addressed in the GCN vision statement.
Things like :

(1) Renewalists should develop a very intentional local-level ecumenical relationship with the local churches/ministries of the LCMS, splinter Lutherans, and worldwide Lutherans (all simply because they are Lutherans, whether or not ELCA leaders like to acknowledge that fact), and with those renewed Episcopalians who are willing to accept the full role that women have in what we do (because of the special ecumenical relationship between Lutherans and the Episcopal Church; we should lead them by example). Renewalists can be ecumenical, too, when they want to be, and they represent the very segments which are not really being heard where churches make decisions about the shape of theological rapprochement. Their voices have, oddly enough, been heard clearly on the Episcopal side of the table, which gives me some hope in those discussions.

(2) clear and explicit support for Lutheran schools, camps, retreat centers, youth groups, and campus ministries, **** official ELCA or otherwise ****;

(3) an attempt to popularize (spread in common parlance) the key ideas of the Confessions, and especially the Small Catechism.

(4) There is no attempt to answer or even propose regarding what I consider to be a basic question of the faith today : what does a renewing church do regarding poverty and the underclass ? Sure, the networking itself could be a help; the rebuilding of family life would be a help; a clear sex ethic and a clear economic ethic would be a help; building a solid devotional life would be a big help. But the context for that involves vast numbers of people, here and abroad, whose life situations make having or being involved in such things much more difficult. All those things could help forge a strong support network for the underclass, but that underclass just simply has too little access to it due to their lack of money and social position. There is a 'corporate' (Body) witness for Christians to make in this world, one which takes on princes and principalities for the sake of the oppressed. I suggest using several formats :
(a) parish- or local-network based community ministries, a la what's being done by Bethel Lutheran in Chicago, Trinity-Lower East Side in New York, or Episcopal Church Of the Messiah in Detroit;
(b) Christian citizens' (** NOT ** denominational!!!) lobbies, a la Bread For the World;
(c) direct parish teaming with denominational/interLutheran ministries (as above re crisis pregnancies, or in helping to meet the special needs of the LIRS, LWR, seamen's missions, Lutheran schools, and Lutheran Community Services);
(d) special relationships/projects with existing parachurch ministries (for example, Christians Linked In Mission, World Vision-US Ministries, Prison Fellowship/Justice Fellowship, Youth Guidance, Youth Specialties, Bread For the World Institute, or LOVE Inc.).

A congregation might try one or (IF large enough) all. But GCN ought to consider actively encouraging some such involvement, even to the point of networking an area's members/parishes together to do it.

(5) I myself would like to see GCN and the other ELCA renewalists create an analysis of the ELCA Statement of Purpose, and express their purposes in terms of that analysis. That way, it can develop a more comprehensive approach to renewing all aspects of the church, and perhaps avail itself of opportunities to better strengthen things they support and to create new or better ones. Not all of it has to be done by the same group a la Presbyterians For Renewal; it may be better done by separate groups a la the Episcopal renewalists. There are, after all, different approaches to renewal, and they may not find themselves organizationally compatible. But if not, there does at the very least have to be a coherence between the groups, a dogged determination to work together. As Richard Lovelace has pointed out, we ultimately can't limit renewal to only a part of the church; rather, there is an empowerment by the Holy Spirit which is intended for all aspects of the church and all congregations within it.

Robert Longman