STUDENT POWER IN THE CHURCH

            Church-related student organizations of the past have tended to see their role in an auxiliary relationship to the Church. Their program and focus have dealt primarily with issues of interest to particularly students who identified themselves as Christians. A student’s relationship to such an organization was primarily a receiving rather than a giving relationship. “What can I get out of this organization?” was, and sometimes still is, the predominant concern of most members. True, some members gave of themselves for the good of the organization, but even this small minority often failed to perceive ways in which their organization might contribute to the policy-making and program of the entire Church, not just the student segment.

            Church youth were kept in their own ghetto, separated from the mainstream policy-making of the Church. They were funded and received some directives from the Church, but that same Church usually heard little from the youth, at least not while they were still students. The Church expected them to be loyal church supporters, but not to become vocal, not yet!

            Whether the institutional church or the students were more at fault for this one-way relationship is not the issue. Both must share in the blame, one for lack of encouragement, the other for lack of initiative. Unfortunately, the above is still typical of far too many student groups associated with churches, but for others that age is passing.

            The contemporary student mood is one of a desire for action rather than passivity. The impulse to belong to an organization just for its own sake is fading. Students still want to “receive” but not without also being heard. The Church has responded to this change by a number of ways, in many cases giving youth a greater voice in its affairs, but have youth, especially college students, fully grasped this opportunity and its significance?

            Youth are the Church. Not merely a warming-up game for Christianity, but a vital part of that whole organ which is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ must have the views and perspectives of all its members, and particularly those of the student generation.

            Many youth are disillusioned with the institutional Church, and thus feel they must retreat into their own student religious ghettos, failing to realize that this does little to change the institutional Church. Rather than just complaining, it is time that students speak out and help bring the changes necessary to make the institutional Church more sensitive to people, more caring, more concerned for the modern world, more true to the Gospel—and thus, more “Christian.”

            Students should not take a more vocal stand in the Church simply because this seems to be the thing to do these days. Unless we speak out with an enlightened voice after having studied the issues, our words will be no more than the empty rhetoric about which we are often so critical. Neither should we be overly critical of a Church’s official stand until we know what that stand is. Sometimes it is more “relevant to the times” than the stand of many of that Church’s constituency.

            The latter is strategically important for students and all others who criticize and seek to change the institutional Church. The belief, attitude, and policy changes desired are often already advocates by some at the national level. Where the real changes need to occur is on the local level of the Church, which is often the conservative clog in the institutional structure. It is at this most difficult level that student power must begin to operate. To work at this level requires insight into human relations, time and patience, a deep faith commitment, and an endurance supported by a Spirit-inspired vision of hope.

            Yet at the local level and at all other levels of the institutional Church, at least five interrelated forms of “student power” must become operative if students truly are the Church. The first and often overlooked form is that of dialogue.

I. Dialogue

            “Dialogue” is an ever-used and often misused word these days, yet true dialogue is necessary in order to accomplish attitudinal changes at especially the local level. Students must be willing to listen to their fellow churchmen in addition to speaking. Dialogue must be seen as an attempt to open minds, not simply to impress one’s ideas or views on another. All sides in the dialogue should be helped to see their common humanity and the Christian commitment which they share. Finally, the success of any dialogue, if measurable at all, cannot be measured in large terms, for the opening of even one mind is significant.

            Dialogue hardly sounds like a form of student power, and yet as the first form it must precede or at least accompany the other forms of student power if they are to be effected. In addition to mind-opening, it performs the educational and interpretative functions so needed today if any understanding is to be reached. This includes interpreting to others the beliefs and actions of one’s fellow students. The conviction with which students hold their beliefs and ideas, as conveyed through dialogue, can indeed have force and power.

II.  DEMONSTRATION

            Dialogue is certainly needed as an accompaniment to the second form of student power, i.e., the demonstration. This includes sign carrying, guerilla theater, fasting, disruption, and other symbolic, visible gestures directed at a church or church convention. Such protest demonstrations are justifiable and effective within the Church when carried out under appropriate circumstances, directed toward the proper authorities, and governed by the tenets of love proclaimed by the Church. In certain areas of concern, demonstrations may be the fastest and most effective method of motivating concrete action. Yet great is the danger of misinterpretation or misidentification with the secular demonstrations which are incongruent with the Christian confession. Thus, the initiation of and involvement in demonstrations directed at the Church must be carefully and critically examined in the light of the Gospel.

            A less direct, less spontaneous form of demonstration are those affirmative acts or experiments carried out by students, and which could well prove to be valuable models in the strategizing and policy-making of the Church as a whole. One example consists of the Crises Colonies of ALC colleges, which involve students in a new type of educational process, set in the midst of a crisis, wherever the crisis is to be found. “Free Universities” and “Peace Studies” are other examples. Similarly, centers have been developed on ALC campuses “to provide enabling services undergirding the particular tasks of the church in the world.” These are some of the many innovations begun by students and other “youth” (youth being a spirit, not necessarily a chronological age). Yet because of their critical significance for the contemporary mission of the whole Church, such innovations are far more than merely “projects of the kids.” They are forms of student influence, if not power, within the Church. Another example of this might be contemporary folk, jazz, and mixed media worship services, begun in many cases by students, but not becoming widely accepted by many in the Church, because of the way in which they relate to the issues of today.

III. RESOLUTION

            But such innovative experiments are usually not readily associated with the institutional Church. Therefore, more direct forms of student influence must be utilized. One method to which church officials are often receptive is that of the resolution. This is still a rather passive type of action and the danger is that the students passing and directing such resolutions to the Church may be merely passing off guilt due to their own inaction on a given issue. Generally this has not been true of most of the resolutions passed by the ALC youth, for example, during the past few years. (Note: all examples of student power in this paper are from the ALC simply because this is where the writer has seen it operate). Most of the resolutions officially passed on to the proper ALC leaders by the Luther League and ALC Student Conference have reflected a genuine plea for the Church to become more involved in those issues and concerns which youth are themselves involved in, or to exert financial, moral, and persuasive power where youth are not yet in a position to do so. These have covered such areas as hunger, racism, war, the urban crisis, and drug laws. Some of these resolutions have helped to stir action on the part of the institutional Church. Resolutions are to date one of the most effective means through which youth can be heard in the Church.

However, it is strategically quite important that such resolutions come from students or youth who place themselves under or as a group identify themselves with that particular church organization. In other words, an LSM resolution directed towards the ALC will probably have far less influence on the ALC then would a resolution of a caucus of ALC students. Similarly, the voice of a student who speaks up in his own congregation is far more likely to be heard than if he speaks up in a sister congregation. Consequently, the further that an organization such as LSM disidentifies itself with the three Lutheran Church bodies, the more influence will it lose with those three bodies. This is not a plea for disengagement from the principles upon which the LSM was founded, but a suggestion that these principles may have in large part reflected the older, now becoming outdated, conception of the relation of a church related student organization to the organized Church.

            If the present student mood is one of action and a desire to affect the institutional Church, then structural means must be found for the LSM to move into a more purposeful relationship to the three Lutheran bodies, in honest recognition of the political realities of a yet divided American Lutheranism. One means of facilitating this might be through the formation of three political caucuses within the LSM, a tripartite separation which would exist only for the purposes of actively relating to each of the three Lutheran bodies. But at the same time, it is vitally important that the ecumenical unity within the LSM be strongly reflected in all other matters (whatever there might be), for our unity will hopefully help to serve as a model for the now yet separate Lutheran bodies, much as the previously mentioned youth innovations have done in the past.

IV. Coalition

            The above is not meant to imply that any resolutions or other political actions by students must be exclusively those of students. If college students are to be an important political influence in the policy and decision-making of the Church, we must give up our separatism and begin to work with others who share your youthful views and concerns. We must form coalitions with others. This includes Luther or Walther leaguers, blacks, and many of the over-30 generation. Youth is the spirit of a new humanity and does not necessarily reflect a chronological age or student status. Nevertheless as college students, because of our unique perspective “where the action is,” along with our greater solidarity on these issues, we should and must provide the vanguard in the formation of these coalitions.

            Students often overlook other segments within the Church who are striving for the same changes, and with whom we must work in order to form more influential political power blocks within the Church. For example, many of the concerns of the ALC Student Conference in recent years have also been the concerns of the ALC Conference on Inner City Ministries. Members of both groups will be present at the upcoming ALC General Convention and could conceivably join forces politically on many issues.

V. REPRESENTATION

            Certainly not least of the five forms of student power in the Church is that of representation on all levels of the Church, from local to national. More full and equal representation has been the plea of several resolutions passed by ALC and other Lutheran youth. Such representation has improved considerably in the past few years within the ALC, in past because of student pressure. Numerous local church councils now have youth members. Many congregations are seeking or have found ways to involve the under-21-year olds in the policy and decision-making of the congregation. Most districts now have official youth visitors, who are free to speak at convention sessions. (Unfortunately, the age factor is still an obstacle to permitting youth to vote in corporately organized districts). Due in part to a student resolution of the past, the ALC General Convention will now include forty official youth members, rather than the ten of past conventions. In addition, since 1968 there have been youth advisory members on all Boards and Commissions of the ALC.

            Although most of this representation was non-existent a few years ago, it cannot be pretended that full and equal representation has now been achieved. Much of the supposed “representation” is still at the tokenism level, for which both youth and the church are at fault. At this stage, the ability of these representatives to bring changes in the Church is largely dependent on their ability to form coalitions with others in more influential positions in these policy-making bodies is small, they do add a new perspective needed in the Church of today.

IN CONCLUSION…

            The above are five different, complementary forms of student power. Although these forms are largely motivated by dissatisfaction within the institutional Church, they are sincere attempts to deal with the reality of the present institution, yet recognizing that the Church is far more than its institutional expressions.

            As we here… other Christian student organizations… [three lines of essentially indistinguishable text. Clear text continues on the next printed page. Many apologies—the Eds.]

            As members of the Lutheran Student Movement we are forced to grapple with the meaning of retaining that Lutheran identity apart from other Christian student organizations. Adherence to the Faith confessed in the Lutheran tradition seems to necessarily involve active participation on all levels of the presently institutionalized Lutheran churches. Therefore, can we as a Movement retain that Lutheran label and still refuse to exercise our “student power” within the ALC, LCA, and the LCMS?

            This need not imply that every local student group be involved in all five types of student power. The diversity of such groups should be reflected in the ways they relate to the Church. But the important thing is that each group sees itself in a complementary relationship as part of the whole Church.

            The LSM was founded with the intention of incorporating all types of Lutheran groups, yet many which are not the traditional type of Christian student organization which have shown little desire to become a part of the LSM. In large part this is  [words missing] new purpose being served by the current LSM. The LSM should [word missing] consciously conceive of itself as a renewing, innovative, creative entity of the institutional Church (i.e., the three Lutheran churches), yet without hanging on to the apron strings of any institution.