Going with the Flow

GOING WITH THE FLOW  by Pr. Marshall Hahn as printed in January 2010 edition of “Connections Magazine” published by Bible Alive Ministries.

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a

living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.  Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”  – Romans 12:1-2

“What shall be our witness this week?”  With this question, Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson of the ELCA began both his opening sermon for the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly and his Report of the Presiding Bishop to the assembly.  His answer:  “Let this be our witness:  We are a church going with the flow.”  This challenge to the church was the heart of his report.  “No, I am not suggesting we go with the flow of whatever seems to be the current wave; rather, let our witness be that we are going with the flow of God’s Spirit being poured out,” Bishop Hanson explained.  It was a bold rhetorical gambit.  “We are a church going with the flow.”

This had been the criticism of those who opposed the proposals which were to come before the assembly to allow for the rostering of people in homosexual relationships in the church.  The critics said the ELCA was abandoning the commitment to Scripture and the orthodox Christian tradition to go with the flow of the prevailing culture.  Bishop Hanson sought to blunt that criticism by transforming the phrase from a criticism to be avoided into a goal to be embraced.

It was a bold rhetorical gambit.  And it failed.  I was astounded when I heard him use it during his speech, and my 24 years of experience in reading the reactions of congregations to “bold rhetorical gambits” told me it fell flat as a pancake.  I believe Bishop Hanson must have felt it, too.  I listened for this phrase throughout the rest of the assembly – “We are a church going with the flow” – and I never heard it again.  What had been stated as a central image for the church was never once mentioned again.  Yet it is, in fact, a good barometer of how one understands what occurred at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  Is the ELCA a church going with the flow of the current culture – or a church going with the flow of God’s Spirit?  How one answers that question will largely determine how one views the events of this August at the Minneapolis Convention Center.

From the first night of the assembly, when the attempt to require a 2/3 majority for the passage of the Recommendation on Ministry Policies was defeated, it became evident that the assembly could very well pass all of the proposals concerning human sexuality.  As a voting member who was working actively with CORE to defeat these proposals, I could sense the disappointment from the CORE supporters and the optimism from those in favor of the changes.  And, of course, this was to become the assembly that adopted the changes which had long been sought by the advocates for changing the church’s teaching and practice concerning homosexual behavior.

But even for many of those who advocated these changes, the results were more troubling than triumphant.  The critical vote came on Wednesday, August 19, a day which will, no doubt, be remembered as the most significant date in the ELCA’s history.  For me, it will always be remembered as a surreal experience.  My seat was only three tables from the front, so I had a good view of the podium.  I first sensed something out of kilter when I noticed that Bishop Hanson had gone behind the curtain during the Bible Study.  He soon returned to inform us that a tornado had touched down just south of the convention center and that everyone was to remain in the assembly hall with the doors closed for safety as we began the debate on the Social Statement.  During the debate we could hear the sirens outside and the winds above the convention roof.  We were soon informed that a tornado had damaged the convention center roof, and the steeple of Central Lutheran Church next door.

During the debate, it also became evident that there was a fair amount of concern among those in favor of the proposal that they might not get the 2/3 required.  In fact, there was an attempt at one point to change the agenda to consider the Recommendation on Ministry Policies first, but it was ruled out of order.  The concern was that if the Social Statement did not pass, it would be more difficult to pass the changes on ministry policies.   When the vote was finally taken, the tension in the room was palpable.  Which way would the ELCA “flow?”   When Bishop Hanson viewed the results on his podium, his hesitation only added to the tension of the moment.  When the numbers were posted on the assembly screens, there was a silent, stunned reaction as 1,014 voting members mentally calculated the results – 676 yes, 338 no – exactly 2/3… exactly 66.667%.  Upon Bishop Hanson’s ruling that the Social Statement had been adopted, there was a spontaneous burst of applause, immediately belying any respect for the “bound conscience” of the 338 voting members sitting next to them.

Yet the sense of triumph was short-lived for many.  When Ryan Schwarz took the election of the Vice-President to the 4^th ballot, giving both himself and Robert Benne an opportunity to address the assembly, it was evidence that the opposition to the assembly’s decisions was deep, principled, and unswerving.  By the time the Recommendation on Ministry Policies were debated, several of the speeches in favor were almost apologetic  Others said that, while personally in favor of the proposal, they did not believe the church would be well-served by them at this time.  But the advocates for change would not be denied.

Yet, just as I have not sensed any movement to embrace “ELCA – a church going with the flow” as a rallying cry for the ELCA, so, too, I have not heard from any of the reports of the reception of the assembly’s actions any note of an accomplishment to be celebrated.  Indeed, as I left the convention center on Sunday, I spoke with a number of the most ardent supporters of the assembly’s decisions.  They told me they were surprised, themselves, at the mixed feelings they had about the outcome.  Their joy was far more muted and subdued than they anticipated it would be.

What I am left with from the assembly is the image of the dangling cross on Central Lutheran’s steeple.  For some, it may be a sign of the resiliency of the ELCA in the face of the storms that confront it.  But for me, it is a sign of a church falling to the winds of an alien creed – “going with the flow” until “the flow” threatens to overwhelm it.