Carl Braaten pines for "magisterial authority"

My first encounter with Professor Braaten was visiting one of his classes back in 1982.  The Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago was hosting prospective seminary students and they thought having us hear Prof. Braaten would help seal the deal.

He was provocative, and, therefore, interesting.  Lo, these 28 years later, I still remember his crack about Jesus "the skinny Jew," and his aside following, "Well, you know, all that fasting..."

Later on, as a student at Wartburg, it was my job to entertain Prof. Braaten when he came to visit and give a lecture.  I took him to "The Lounge," my favorite bar in Dubuque.  Prof. Weiblen had assured me that, though Braaten was on a health kick at the time, he still liked his beer.

I enjoy reading Carl Braaten because he speaks clearly.  Many theologians are simply impenetrable--(not to name any names, but Eberhard Jungel, you know who you are).  Braaten, however, is not difficult to understand, or at least wasn't until recently.

One of my friends reminded me of this article written by Braaten late last summer after the churchwide assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in which the rule against partnered gays being on the clergy roster was changed. 

This was written right after the vote and bears telltale signs of being written in anger.  Frankly, it says little of substance, and like James Nestingen's similar rant, is insulting to all the voting members who attended the churchwide assembly.

He starts off with a reference to a majority who "voted in favor of resolutions bearing on standards for ordained ministry that no Lutheran Church had ever considered before, let alone approved."  One wonders how that can be true when Sweden elected a lesbian bishop last year.

Braaten then rattles off a list of the Great Men of the Past who, he says, would never have countenanced "the kinds of heresies and heterodoxies now rampant and tolerated in the institutions of the ELCA."  Should we be intolerant of "heresy"?  And if so, what does Braaten suggest?  (In the Glorious Past, we burned them at the stake.)

Incidentally, Braaten asserts "heresy" three or four times, but what exactly is the "heresy"?  The Nicene Creed is the classic statement of orthodoxy.  Did the churchwide assembly do anything to abrogate any portion of the Creed?  No.  Are the two natures of Christ called into question?  No.  Did the ELCA subvert trinitarian theology?  No.  Is there confusion between who is the Creator and who is the Redeemer?  No.

The dissidents keep hollering "heresy," but--please--could someone define exactly what the alleged heresy really is?  Heresy hunters are great at pronouncing heresy, but feeble in making an actual case.

Braaten worries how the ELCA "could slide so quickly down the slippery slope of liberal Protestantism," as if this were a bad thing, then seems to lament that, in the Reformation, we "lost the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church."

First of all, what is so wrong with mainline protestants?  What's wrong with Methodists?  Or Presbyterians?  Does Braaten have a beef with the Disciples of Christ?  Mainline protestants should be proud.  They are the only religious tradition in the world that supports, as Jesus would, the dignity and full humanity of homosexual persons.  (They are also the only Christian tradition to go out on a limb for Palestinians.)

Secondly, Braaten may well miss the "magisterial authority" of the Roman Church, but not many others do.  While Braaten and the dissidents worry about gay pastors in love, most of the rest of the world thinks that the vaunted "magisterial authority" of the Roman Church might have done something to protect Catholic children from predator priests.  He wants us to take moral instruction from the "magisterial authority" that looked the other way and helped to enable one of the great crimes of the millenium?

In the history of Lutheranism the locus of official authority has been wandering all over the place. In the ELCA final authority lies in the hands of a quota-selected majority of lay members who could, if they chose, decide to merge with the Moonies or Mormons, just as they have decided in favor of altar and pulpit fellowship with Methodists and Moravians. 

21st century alert!  In the ELCA, we have been discussing the issue of homosexuality for years.  In fact, in the history of Christianity, no issue has been open to more discussion and input than this one.  Braaten and others have had ample time and opportunity to make their case, and they have done so.  

The majority found it wanting.  We are a democratically-governed church.  People have opinions.  They express them.  They vote on them.  While democracy can sometimes be messy, most people prefer it to being told what to do by those who claim to know more than the rest of us.

Comments

[gs]

like

[John Petty]

thanks

[von gunten]

i've always found it humorous that Braaten, as well as his good friend Pannenberg, were in their youth the radical liberals of the sixties.

as for merging with moonies and mormons, that's like saying the next step is beastiality. give me a break.

btw. hi, john.

[John Petty]

Yeah, hi back. I don't want to speculate about other peoples' fantasies, but some of them seem pretty weird.

[Jason Ramay]

The phrase "we are a democratically governed church" in the last paragraph of your post says everything one needs to know. Unfortunately, I am unsurprised to find yet another claim that something other than Christ - in this case a politically correct quota - is governing the ELCA. Our church is now just a pale, whitebread, shrinking loaf without salt or leaven. And, as Nestingen has said, about to get much whiter - when our brothers and sisters south of the border and south of the equator decide that our liberal protestantism has totally ceded its calling and leave in droves (cf. the Anglican/Episcopalian fallout). As for the claim that mainline liberal protestantism is the only religious tradition in the world to honor the dignity and full humanity of homosexuals, this is simply false. Honoring dignity and full humanity does not mean abandoning standards or condoning what the rudderless PC elite says it good and right, any more than honoring the full humanity of my children means letting them do whatever they want. Finally, appealing to currency as justification for the decisions at the assembly is just as wrong as appealing to the old, white, male deadness of Braaten's allies as proof of their error. Of course, not every position taken by a secular, pc liberal elitist is ipso facto wrong, any more than a position taken by a defender of 2 millenia of tradition is ipso facto right. But that begs the question about the decisions now fatefully made: "By what authority?"

Thanks for weighing in!

Jason Ramay

[John Petty]

Obviously, we disagree. I do appreciate your taking the time to share your views.