Lutheran Social Teaching

As everyone who posted stressed, the presentation by Kelli and Crystal was very good. If they created an impression that Lutheranism is “laid back” (Crystal’s term), that’s in part because of all the people involved in the discussion. Most of us are learning about this tradition for the first time, and Pastor Jay was, I’m sure, a bit nervous about having to talk about these issues to a couple of bright honors students from a Catholic college. When I met him, he struck me as honest, open, and down-to-earth and, by his own admission, not too comfortable talking about doctrine.

This sense of discomfort in the face of doctrine or “official” teaching does bother Lutheran theology (please understand, I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing). Our resident Lutheran even confirmed it when he said that, after “taking 8 years of Sunday School an 2 years of Confermation Classes and I do not recall ever learning about LST.” He too had to “look on the website” to discover “what my church believed.” It’s interesting that Steve wondered whether the Lutheran awareness of LST might change with all the focus on ordination of active homosexuals. It might, but I remember Kelli and Crystal pointing out that Lutheranism also had an opportunity to promote its social teachings when it decided to ordain women and evidently it still did not get the word out.

Clearly many of you (Liz wrote about it quite a bit) found the topic of ordination to be a “social issue,” which it is. As I tried to suggest in class, it is also a theological issue, and that is the real stumbling block in Catholicism. The refusal to ordain women cannot be defended by Catholic social teaching, even in its mildest forms (Leo XIII). It also cannot be defended by scripture, no matter what your local parish priest tells you (they too are usually uninformed, just less likely to admit it). It can only be defended and preserved for theological reasons. Ironically, much of what I think we all admire about the Catholic tradition, namely, its emphasis on God’s sacramental presence in the physical world, depends upon the same theology that defends male ordination. We can’t say that physical realty matters and is valuable because God became fully human and then dismiss the physical form he took. However, neither can we say that he only “ordained” men; he never ordained anybody. Moreover, as the Church continues to discover the horrors perpetrated by a (theological) system that does ordain and protect pedophiles, we do have good reason to recoil and, like Meghan, insist that we at least question how much gender matters when we are looking for true “mediators for God.”

Finally, I was glad that Carla spoke (and Crystal responded) about the topic of open communion as a social issue. Carla wrote that she admired the way Lutherans thought of “their participation in Communion” as an “’amen’ to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the acceptance of his love for them.” Her admiration for the Lutheran practice, as well as her reticence to adopt it for Catholicism, calls attention to how this can be a social issue. I think Lutheran theologians would say that Carla really found the heart of their position, but I also think they would change the last word of her statement from “them” to “all.” As I understand it, Lutheran social teaching emphasizes that human solidarity begins in shared experiences—from the cross to the communion rail. In this way of thinking, Christians don’t agree first so that they can then experience God’s grace through the shared meal, they share the meal in hopes that it provides an experience of grace (two or three gathered in God’s name) that becomes the foundation for subsequent agreements.

Nice work everyone, and I look forward to hearing from the UCC duo tomorrow. We’ll also plan the Saturday excursion to weather-proof some homes. jw