The Complex Relationship of Chickens and Eggs

A SECOND LOOK AT CULTURAL CONFORMITY

The relationship of the Church to culture is complex. (Though I believe that this is true everywhere, I am writing from a North American perspective.) Different Christian denominations negotiate their relationship to culture differently. The Amish, for example, have some necessary dealings with the prevailing culture, but have created a distinctive subculture in which they live apart. The holiness churches, such as the Church of the Nazarene, live embedded in the larger culture but reject some of its practices. Traditionally the holiness churches have eschewed drinking, card playing, movies and dancing. Lutherans, for the most part, have been fairly comfortable with culture, though historically there have been pietistic movements and trends.

The Lutheran church of my childhood was largely indistinguishable from the broader culture, mostly sharing its mores and values. It was in that church that I learned the Gospel of God's grace and the universality of God's love. It was there that I learned the virtues of Christian liberty, equality and respect.

The times of my life have seen dramatic social changes. I have witnessed the civil rights movement of the 60s, the feminist movement of the 70s, and now I observe the movement toward full inclusion of homosexuals and lesbians in both church and society. Each of these movements has met with resistance, sometimes vehement, sometimes violent. Still, the overall trajectory of our culture has been toward greater liberty, equality and respect, the same values that I learned in Sunday School.

Critics of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decisions allowing same-sex partnered clergy have charged the ELCA with "cultural conformity." I find this a strange criticism. Coming from the Amish, or even a holiness denomination, it might make more sense. But taking it at face value, it raises a chicken-and-egg question:

Were the ELCA's decisions driven by the prevailing culture or has the prevailing culture been shaped by the churches' preaching of liberty, inclusiveness and respect?

I do not pretend that this is an easy question and I do not think that it is simply answered. The relationship of the Church to culture is complex. I suspect that, in this case, the two have exerted mutual influence.

As for the ELCA's critics, I hear in their arguments, an undercurrent of desire to return the church to a former state. A state of say, fifty years ago, when I was a child and the church was indistinguishable from the prevailing culture.

I am not quite done with this topic.





The 14th c. illustration was found here.

Cultural Conformity

A HISTORICAL IRONY

I have a manila file folder labeled "Blogfodder." There has been a brochure from Lutheran CORE in it for a few weeks now. You can, for the time being, view a .pdf file of the brochure here. I would call your attention in particular to a paragraph that says:

The decisions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on human sexuality and ministry policies that contradict what the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church has confessed down through the centuries and across all cultures highlight the theological crisis in Lutheranism in North America. However, the fact that the ELCA is willing to allow pastors to be in same-sex relationships is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a deep and pervasive underlying problem: a culture-conforming theology alien to the classical Christian tradition that has invaded major sectors of the ELCA.

Shortly after the CORE brochure arrived in the mail, I blogged about an ELCA congregation in Montana that is joining the LCMC. Wayne Arnst, a spokesperson for the congregation accused the ELCA of adopting a "Gospel of inclusion." One of the replies to that post came from Michael, who wrote:

Perhaps a better phrasing for Mr. Arnst would be "Gospel of Conformity"?

Apparently "conformity" has become a buzzword in some circles. I take the charge of "culture-conformance" to mean that the ELCA has abandoned the values of someone's orthodoxy and adopted the values of the prevailing culture. This is an interesting argument.

From my reading in the fields of historical Jesus scholarship, Christian origins, and New Testament studies I have come to think that the first followers of Jesus were a profoundly counter-cultural bunch. They stood outside the mainstream culture of Galilee, Judea and the Roman empire.

When thinking about counter-cultures, there are two things to consider. First, a counter-culture is a culture unto itself. Second, counter-cultures cannot sustain themselves indefinitely. They will either be destroyed by the prevailing culture, absorbed into the prevailing culture, or become the prevailing culture. (This is not an exhaustive list of possibilities, but it is sufficient for my purposes.)

By the end of the New Testament era, as it became evident that the parousia (that is, the so-called "Second Coming" of Christ) was delayed, Christianity began to trench in for the long haul. The Christian movement was well on its way to becoming the Church. This was the period of what Norman Perrin called "Emergent Catholicism." Christianity began to adopt the values of the prevailing Roman culture. By the time the last books of the New Testament were written, the Church was adopting a hierarchical organization and women were being excluded from leadership roles. In other words, the nascent Church was conforming to culture.

In the year 325, the Church took what was probably its greatest leap into culture-conformance. This was the year that the emperor Constantine assembled the bishops of the Church at Nicea to hammer out an official body of doctrine. Constantine wanted the Church to adopt a uniform theology for the good of his Empire. The Council of Nicea gave us what would forever after be the orthodox doctrine of the Church.

Though I myself am thoroughly Nicene in confession, I see an irony in all of this. Those who portray themselves as Lutheranism's doughty defenders of orthodox tradition accuse the ELCA of culture conformance while themselves proclaiming the doctrines that came from the Church's greatest culture-conforming moment.

More to come.




The picture accompanying this post is an image of the First Council of Nicea. Prominent among those haloed heads is Emperor Constantine, noted by his crown and royal robes. I found the picture at this website.

Another Good Read

Erik Ullestad, over at Koinonia blog, takes on a critic of the ELCA who has a large pulpit. Erik's post is reasonable, kindly stated and well-written. Read it here.

Easter

CHRIST IS RISEN! ALLELUIA!


An inner panel from Grunewald's Isenheim altarpiece depicts the resurrection of Jesus, conflated, perhaps with the ascension and transfiguration.

Jesus has burst living, transformed, radiant from the tomb. The soldiers placed as guards are knocked to the ground by the suddenness (is it too much to say "violence?") of the resurrection. The foremost soldier, his helmet askew, raises a helpless arm perhaps to defend himself, perhaps to shield his eyes from the light streaming from Christ's face. In the background, another soldier is falling to the ground in an attitude that suggests obeisance. The risen Jesus conquers both death and the earthly forces of imperial oppression.

The margins of Jesus' face are obscured by the light beaming from it. His hair and beard shine, not blonde like Dali’s surfer-boy Jesus, but heavenly gold. I love the play of light and color on the unwinding shroud. Christ's resurrection body still bears the wounds of nail and spear, but now they glow with golden radiance. All other wounds are healed. The body of Jesus in Grunewald’s crucifixion was diseased and anguished. Now he is restored, not only to life, but to health.

I read somewhere long ago that miracles of healing were attributed to the Isenheim altarpiece. Patients at the St. Anthony’s monastery hospital were instructed to meditate on the crucifixion panel in which Jesus bore the signs of illness like their own. At a high mass, perhaps on Easter, the altarpiece was opened to reveal the resurrection scene, and patients were restored to health.

St. Athanasius said Jesus “became what we are that we might become what he is.”


Blessed Easter.

Good Friday

A MAN OF SORROWS AND ACQUAINTED WITH GRIEF




In the second decade of the sixteenth century, Matthias Grunewald painted the elaborate altarpiece that adorned the hospital chapel of the Monestary of St. Anthony in Isenheim, Alsace. The altarpiece is now displayed at the Unterlinden Museum in Colmar, France. The crucifixion depicted here is visible when the altarpiece is closed. I have only seen it in reproductions, but I have seen one of Grunewald's smaller paintings of the crucifixion in person.

This is not a pretty painting, but neither was Jesus' crucifixion pretty. The figure of the crucified Christ dominates the composition. It is not only central to the painting, but the figure on the cross is noticeably larger than the other figures.

To the left of the cross, that is the viewer's right, is the anachronistic figure of John the Baptist. The Gospel accounts make clear that John was dead well before the crucifixion of Jesus. His pointing gesture and the symbolic lamb at his feet show his role here to be the same as that in the Gospels. "Behold," he says, "the Lamb of God" The Latin motto behind the Baptist is taken from John 3:30 "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui." ("He must increase but I decrease.")

On the opposite side is a trio of figures commonly shown at the foot of the cross. In white, Jesus' mother Mary faints with grief. She is supported by the beardless young disciple John. Kneeling, an alabaster jar of embalming ointment beside her, is the penitent Magdalene, her suppliant hands twisted with sorrow. The faces or all three are expressionistic masks of grief.

The Christ is dead. His eyes are closed, head slumped, jaw slack. His recent agonies are evident. The body is gangrenous, the lips hypoxic blue, the hands and feet gnarled with pain, the abdomen hollow. The corpus bears the marks of scourge, nail and spear as well as the unbiblical detail of thorns piercing flesh all over the body.

The hospital of St. Anthony's monastery specialized in the care of patients suffering skin diseases. The Crucified in Grunewald's painting bears the marks of their diseases. The crucified Savior shared their lot.

The crucified Christ shares the lot of all humanity.

Blessed Good Friday.





I found the image of Grunewald's crucifixion here.

Maundy Thursday

BODY AND BLOOD, FOOT WASHING, AND A NEW COMMANDMENT

For the great three days of Holy Week, I want to leave aside my usual theme to share three great works of art which depict the final events of Jesus' life. For Maundy Thursday, I offer Salvador Dali's painting of the Last Supper. I have seen this painting at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. The canvas is huge and its effect stunning.




I am not enamored of Dali's beardless, blonde, blue-eyed Christ, though I recognize that it has a precedent in very early Christian art. In this painting Dali's Christ is clearly not intended to be the Jesus of history. It is an idealized and spiritualized semi-corporeal figure. Christ's gesture says, "This is my body" pointing to himself with his left hand, and with his right, to the equally insubstantial heavenly body overhead. On the table in front of him is a broken loaf of bread rendered as a solid and weighty object. Here, then, the heavenly Christ is bodily present.

In the perfectly symmetrical composition of the disciples kneeling at the table, the viewer's attention is drawn to the cup of wine which is placed slightly off-center. Dali was an extraordinary draftsman. He has rendered this cup, and the play of the sunlight (shining through the Christ figure) with precise realism. This glass of wine is the earthly presence of Christ's blood.

The golden geometric framework is, I believe, a dodecahedron, a form that Dali admired for its alleged perfection. I take it to be the canopy of heaven. The landscape in the background is Port Lligat, Dali's hometown. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, heaven comes to us on earth. In the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are present and made real to us.

Blessed Maundy Thursday!




I found the image of Dali's painting here. Clicking the image will enlarge it.

Read This

Over at prettygoodlutherans.com Susan Hogan has published the Columbia Declaration, a statement by some of the faculty of Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary supporting the ELCA decisions regarding same-sex partnered clergy .

Click here to read it for yourself.

False Dichotomy

REDEMPTION IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF INCLUSION

On March 26, 2010, the Great Falls (Montana) Tribune ran a story under the headline "Speaker addresses possible shift for Faith Lutheran." It tells of yet another congregation deserting the ELCA and joining the LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ). I cannot imagine that even in Great Falls, Montana a local congregation changing the church body with which it affiliates is considered very newsworthy. This, and the fact that the story includes a link to the LCMC website, but not the ELCA website, makes me think that Tribune was called in by the LCMC as part of a publicity strategy. I could be wrong, of course.

The most interesting part of the article to me was a statement by Wayne Arnst, "a member of and spokesperson for Faith Lutheran Church."

Arnst said that over time, ELCA has moved from a "Gospel of Redemption" as a longstanding Lutheran tradition, to a "Gospel of Inclusion."

Like the words "New and Improved" on a cereal box, this distinction between redemption and inclusion sounds meaningful, but is it? Surely redemption and inclusion are not mutually exclusive categories.

As I read the Scriptures, Jesus was very much about inclusion. He persistently associated with the marginalized, outcast and unclean. He shared table fellowship with "tax-collectors and sinners." He was found in company with Samaritans. Under the Apostle Paul, the religion of Jesus began even to include Gentiles.

I am not entirely clear as to what Arnst might mean by the "Gospel of Redemption." I understand redemption to be God's radical reordering of fallen creation into the Kingdom of God, a kingdom marked by peace, justice and love.

I suspect that Arnst's vision of redemption is somewhat different than mine. I suspect, though I cannot say with certainty, that Arnst's vision of redemption involves a kind of moral purity that excludes homosexual love. I suspect that Arnst's idea of redemption includes either conversion of homosexuals into heterosexuals, or a requirement of celibacy for homosexuals. If it is the former, then the best empirical evidence tells us that conversion does not happen. If the latter, then it is tied up in a subtle form of works righteousness. Either way this kind of redemption can hardly be called "Gospel." It is Law.





For further reading, Justin Johnson (DarthJedi) has written a good piece about whether Jesus required repentance when he forgave sins. Read it here.

TRADITION! Part 3

WHAT IS THE PLURAL OF CONSENSUS?

The ELCA has departed from the "catholic consensus" of the Church concerning the morality of gay sex. While I believe that tradition should not be abandoned lightly, I also believe that tradition for its own sake is of no value.

A sardonic old joke says that the Seven Last Words of the Church are, "We've never done it that way before."

The "catholic consensus" concerning homosexuality and marriage is based in old notions that are now demonstrably false. Notions such as "homosexuality is a willful perversion" and "the purpose of sex is procreation." When tradition is no longer useful, when it is found to be based in false premises, when it is even found to be hurtful, it should be abandoned.

Old dogs do not learn new tricks easily. Departing from tradition is difficult. The ELCA has done the right thing in adopting its social statement on human sexuality and accordingly revising its requirements for ministry. By making the compromise of allowing "local option" the ELCA has tried to bring everyone along. Of course, that is not possible, and now the ELCA is paying the price for doing right.

I recently had a conversation with a colleague in which we entertained the hypothetical question "What would it take for you to leave the ELCA?" After I got the obligatory joke out of the way ("I'll leave the ELCA when they pry my Evangelical Lutheran Worship hymnal from my cold dead fingers!") I gave the question some serious consideration.

I would consider the ELCA to be heterodox if it abandoned the true catholic consensus as stated in the creeds of the Church. I would leave the ELCA if it strayed from the Lutheran consensus on the doctrine of justification by grace, through faith, apart from works of the Law. Justification, not an outdated view of homosexuality, is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.






The picture attached to this post is of Maurice Schwartz, the first actor to play Tevye the Dairyman in a movie. The film, which Schwartz also directed, was the 1939 Yiddish language production titled, simply, Tevye. Now that's tradition! I found the photograph here.

The plural of "consensus" is "consensuses." Really.

TRADITION! Part 2

THE CATHOLIC CONSENSUS AND ROAST BEEF

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has departed from the "catholic consensus" on the morality of homosexuality. This is a criticism leveled against the ELCA by those who disagree with its decisions to recognize "publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous" same-sex relationships, and to permit the ordination of pastors living in such relationships. The criticism is right. The ELCA has, in fact, departed from the church's millenia-long tradition of condemning homosexuality.

Tradition is important. In the Church, tradition keeps us grounded, keeps us in line with the historic faith, and assures that we remain a part of the "holy, catholic Church" which we confess in the Creed.

Perhaps you know the story about the young bride who cut the end off of a beef roast before she put it in the oven. Her husband asked her "Why do you do that?" She answered, "I don't know. My mother always did it. Let's ask her."

So they called the mother. "Mom, why do you cut the end off of a beef roast before you put it in the oven?" She answered, "I don't know. That's the way my mother always prepared a roast. Let's ask her."

So they called the grandmother. "Why do you cut the end off of a roast beef before you put it in the oven?" "Don't you know?" the grandmother replied. "My roasting pan is too small. That's the only way to make it fit."

Tradition is important, but a slavish and unexamined devotion to tradition is silly.

Lutherans have departed from the "catholic consensus" on a number of issues in the past. If we had not, we would still have seven Sacraments instead of two. We would have only male clergy, and arguably they would be celibate. We would recognize the power, and perhaps the primacy of the Pope. We would believe that the sun revolves around the earth. All of these things have been a part of the "catholic consensus." So, while tradition is important, it can, and sometimes should, be changed.

The ELCA did not depart from the "catholic consensus" on homosexuality willy-nilly. The 2009 ChurchWide Assembly decisions were made only after a long period of study, discussion, prayer, reflection and debate. The ELCA has found that our roasting pan is longer than our grandparents'. We no longer need to cut the end off of the roast.





The picture for this post is Topol in the 1971 film version of Fiddler on the Roof. It was a wonderful film and Topol gave a sound performance. Traditionalists, however, might prefer Zero Mostel's portrayal of Tevye. I found the picture here.

Worth Reading

Mark Christianson has a good post on the way in which the critics of the ELCA use the Law. It requires a little theological acumen, but is well worth reading. Check it out here.

I love his expression "law reductionism."

TRADITION! Part 1

A.K.A. THE CATHOLIC CONSENSUS

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, at its 2009 Churchwide Assembly, voted to recognize "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous" same-sex relationships. The ELCA also voted to allow persons living in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous" same-sex relationships to serve as ordained clergy. These decisions have been controversial to say the least.

That "publicly accountable, etc." thing is a cumbersome phrase. Please allow me to use the less precise but more concise term "gay marriage." I know it is not the correct term. I use it only for the sake of simplicity.

Many arguments have been marshaled against gay marriage and the ordination of same-sex partnered clergy. Among them, the argument from tradition is the most significant and hardest to refute. Before I turn to the argument from tradition, here is a quick review of some of the other arguments.

Arguments from Scripture are strong. Five passages in the Bible apparently condemn gay sex. However, when those passages are read in their historical and canonical contexts, it becomes clear that they do not address homosexuality as we now understand it. They do not speak of gay sex within a covenanted and faithful relationship. They do not add up to a universal condemnation of all homosexual acts. There are also biblical arguments about the nature of marriage. The force of these arguments is blunted when we realize that there is no single biblical definition of marriage.

There are moral arguments against gay marriage. These boil down to "gay sex is morally wrong." Moral arguments are answered with ethical arguments: "Gay sex can be practiced ethically in the context of a committed and loving relationship."

There is also the argument from nature. It goes "boy parts are supposed to go with girl parts." This argument is refuted by research which indicates that sexual nature is defined more by hormones and psychology than by anatomy. Homosexuality occurs naturally.

And now we come to the argument from tradition. One of my old seminary profs, Dr. Robert Benne, provides a good example of the argument here. Stated in brief the argument from tradition says that the ELCA, in approving gay marriage and same-sex partnered clergy, has departed from the "catholic consensus" of the church on the morality of gay sex. As I said, this argument is difficult to refute.

That's because it is true. The ELCA has done something new.

The Church, in its nearly two millennia of existence, has no history of approving of gay marriage or same-sex partnered clergy. As I typed that last sentence, I could almost hear the voice of one of my colleagues saying "So what?" Maybe you, my reader, feel the same way. Personally, I think that we should be circumspect about departing from the "catholic consensus" of the Church.

More in my next post.




Illustrating this post is the late Zero Mostel as Tevye the Milkman in the original Broadway production of Fiddler on the Roof. I found the picture here.

News

There has been a lot going on in the Northeastern Iowa Synod lately. Most recently a conference of the Synod has passed a resolution which, if accepted by the Synod Assembly, would bar those holding membership in Lutheran CORE from Synod office. Lutherans Concerned/North America has issued a statement opposing the resolution.

Read about it at Pretty Good Lutherans. The links following the story provide valuable background information. Obie Holmen's post on the story includes a poll that you can vote in.

My editorial comment: Well done, LC/NA. You have shown true commitment to your principles.

Would You Lie for God?

The late Morris J. Niedenthal, professor of homiletics (preaching) at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, used to ask his students, "Would you lie for God?" The question is paraphrased from the Book of Job, but I can never find the exact reference. It is a question to haunt a preacher or anyone who would dare to speak on God's behalf.

The question "Would you lie for God?" is open-ended. It can be understood in many different ways. I think Dr. Niedenthal intended it to be so. Let me explain how I understand what it means to lie for God.

I think that we lie for God when we misrepresent what the Bible says. For example, I would be lying for God if I were to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior. The five biblical passages that speak of homosexual behavior are all negative. This is a fact that every exegete concerned with homosexuality must deal with.

We also lie for God when we misapply the Scriptures. I would be lying for God if I said that those five biblical passages add up to a universal condemnation of homosexuality or gay sex. As I have written in earlier posts, the Old Testament condemns homosexual sex for the men of Israel. The New Testament texts probably condemn pagan temple orgies and pederasty. None of those five passages condemns homosexuality as we now understand it.

Yet another way to lie for God is to deny plain fact in defense of the Bible. I am not churlish enough to suggest that every Young Earth Creationist is a deliberate liar. In fact, I believe most Young Earth Creationists to be quite sincere. They are also mistaken. The physcial evidence indicates that the world is much older than the 6000 years that the biblical texts suggest. So while I do not believe that Young Earth Creationists are lying, I know that I would be lying for God if I were to endorse a literal understanding of the Bible's creation accounts.

By the same token, I would be lying for God if I were to deny what research, science and experience tell us about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a normally occuring subset of human sexuality. The Bible's condemnations of gay sex do not apply in light of our current knowledge.

There are people of good faith who disagree with my stance on homosexuality. I do not believe that they are deliberate liars, but neither will I lie for God by misrepresenting or misapplying Scripture. I will not lie for God by denying plain fact. I do not believe that the God of truth would want me to lie for God.

How about you?




On the news front, the ELCA Conference of Bishops have proposed a process for the seventeen pastors who were ordained by Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries to be rostered in the ELCA. ELM has agreed! Read about it here.

The picture accompanying this post is one of William Blake's illustrations for the Book of Job. I found it here.

The Office of the Keys

A REPLY TO DR. NESTINGEN, PART 2

Do other Christians have a doctrine of the Office of the Keys or is it just a Lutheran thing?

Luther's explanation of the doctrine appears in some editions of his Small Catechism. The 1979 edition published by Augsburg and Fortress (they were separate concerns back then) translated it this way:

What is the "Office of the Keys"?

It is that authority which Christ gave to his church to forgive the sins of those who repent and to declare to those who do not repent that their sins are not forgiven.

Luther cited John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18 as supporting texts for the Office of the Keys. In Luther's day, this doctrine had a polemical function. It denied that the Pope alone held the keys to the kingdom.

As I understand it, the authority to forgive or retain sins belongs to the Church, but is entrusted by the Church to its pastors. The Office of the Keys is exercised in the declaration of forgiveness in private and corporate acts of Confession.

In my last post I began to address some of the concerns raised by Dr. James Arne Nestingen's article in the latest issue of the WordAlone Network News. Elsewhere in that article, Dr. Nestingen claims that the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly decisions undermine the Office of the Keys. Nestingen writes:

Married people can and do sin against one another sexually, even while remaining in the bonds of fidelity. For this reason, in the pastoral care of those caught in marital difficulties, pastors must be free to use the power of the keys to bind and loose—to challenge inappropriate behaviors and forgive the penitent.

In other words, the Office of the Keys may be exercised in a case where a pastor is counseling a married couple when one spouse has hurt another. If the offender is penitent, they are to be forgiven. If they are not penitent, their sins can be retained. Nestingen continues:

The churchwide assembly action and the policies following, protecting the class of behaviors, does not make any similar realistic assessment. Instead, by prohibiting judgment, it places homosexual behavior beyond assessment, undercutting the office of the keys. Where there is no sin, there is no need for forgiveness; similarly, where there is no sin, there is no need for repentance.

Nestingen's assertion here seems to flow out of his assumption that non-procreative sex acts are intrinsically sinful. He would like to apply the Office of the Keys moralistically by wagging a finger at anyone who engages in gay sex. I have already argued that gay sex is no more intrinsically sinful than straight sex.

The ELCA Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality do not undermine the Office of the Keys. They have not placed "homosexual behavior beyond assessment." They simply require a more discerning assessment than the naive formula "boy/girl = good. Boy/boy or girl/girl = bad." Pastors are free to bind and loose the sins by which same-sex partners damage their relationships to one another or to God, just as they are in cases involving heterosexual couples.

Christianity, especially in its Lutheran expression, is not a religion of Law. The Office of the Keys is not about a moralistic application of "shalts" and "shalt nots" concerning sexual acts. It is about the care of souls in their relationship to God and one another.





Obie Holmen has a good post about Nestingen's article at www.theliberalspirit.com. Concerning the Scriptural basis for the Office of the Keys, I like the way Eugene Peterson deals with John 20:23 in his paraphrastic Bible translation The Message: "If you forgive someone's sins, they're gone for good. If you don't forgive sins, what are you going to do with them?"

The detail from Perugino's painting of Christ handing the keys of the kingdom to Peter came from this website.

The Ethics of Sex and Sabotage

A REPLY TO DR. NESTINGEN, PART 1

The latest issue of the WordAlone Network News showed up in my mailbox this week. Its centerpiece was a lengthy article titled "The Necessity of Resistance in 2009" by James Arne Nestingen, professor emeritus of church history, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN.

Dr. Nestingen's arguments are a bit convoluted, but he seems to be counseling his readers to perform a sort of economic sabotage against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Objecting to the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) decisions allowing for the ordination of same-sex partnered clergy, he suggests that withholding benevolence in ways that target "people, programs and ... specific missions" is an appropriate strategy.

In a pull quote from the article Nestingen says, "In fact, the passive-aggressives--those who withhold themselves, backing off from participation--are generally, as pastors commonly know, the most dangerous." Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder was once a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) used by mental health professionals. Like homosexuality, it has been dropped in recent editions. Still, I question whether passive-aggression and deliberate sabotage are ever appropriate ways for Christians to express disagreement.

Predictably, Nestingen refers to the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans:

In Romans 1 Paul moves beyond the sexual hunting to address the grounding offense evident in homosexual behavior. The sexual relationship that embodies the love of husband and wife, and that God generally blesses with children, is taken out of that context and made an end in itself for purposes of self-gratification.

This self-seeking, which can take over hetero- just as well as it does homosexual relationships, involves a covetousness that turns into idolatry.

I have addressed Romans 1 in previous posts here, here and here. It seems to me that Dr. Nestingen has reversed the flow of Paul's argument. Paul states quite clearly that idolatry causes homosexuality. Here, Nestingen argues that homosexuality causes idolatry.

He also suggests that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual relations. This is a disservice to heterosexual couples living in childless marriages. Yes, procreation is one function of sex, but sex is also an expression of loving intimacy.

Dr. Nestingen also does a disservice to homosexuals whom he characterizes as "self-seeking." Ethical gay sex, like ethical straight sex, gives consideration to the other partner.

Perhaps Dr. Nestingen does not realize that homosexuality, in the end, is about whom one loves and desires intimacy with. It is not all about sex acts.






There are other flaws in Nestingen's arguments. In my next post, I will take up his discussion of the Office of the Keys.

The Universalist Heresy

THE ELCA IS NO MORE UNIVERSALIST THAN MARTIN LUTHER WAS

One of the criticisms being leveled against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by the disaffected and dissidents who are storming the exits is that it has embraced the heresy of universal salvation. “Evidence” for the charge typically cites two sources, a page on the ELCA website dealing with salvation and a footnote on Matthew 28:16-20 in Lutheran Study Bible published by Augsburg Fortress.


An example of the charge can be found here. (Warning: Click that link at your own risk. Viewing the site requires a high tolerance for tiresome alarmism and shoddy theology).


The ELCA web page quotes extensively from Dr. Carl Braaten, who has written very critically of the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly decisions on homosexuality. As I understand Dr. Braaten’s statement, it is a declaration of the universal scope of Christ’s saving act, not an endorsement of a doctrine of universalism. That's a fine distinction. Let me see if I can make it clearer:


You who charge the ELCA with universalism, tell me, did Jesus die for all people or not?


As for the Lutheran Study Bible footnote, it was written by Dr. Duane Priebe of Wartburg Theological Seminary. Dr. Priebe himself gave a lengthy explanation of that footnote on Erik Ullestad’s blog. It is thoughtful and well-worth reading. Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:

Christians have never assumed that only those who know and believe in Jesus in this life will participate in salvation in the next. On the most obvious level, that would exclude everyone in the Old Testament.

For myself, I have a strong commitment to the theology of God’s grace. I believe that Jesus died for all people. All means all, but there is one thing that keeps me from being a universalist. I believe just as strongly in God's sovereignty. I believe that salvation is God’s business, not mine. God can, and will, save whom God desires. I am no more a universalist than the man who wrote:

God forbid that I should limit the time for acquiring faith to the present life. In the depths of the divine mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future state.

Martin Luther, Letter to Hansen von Rechenberg, 1523

I understand that the rhetorical flourish of charging the ELCA with heresy is useful to those who wish to leave the church and take others with them. The charge of universalism, however, is plainly false. It’s time for the disaffected and dissident to adopt a new tactic. Spouting nonsense will not help your cause.







I'm still a big fan of the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible. I still don't like Concordia's similarly named The Lutheran Study Bible. Don't be confused by the two. Look for the baby blue Bible.

Keep Talking?

MANIFESTO V. PROPOSAL

I started this blog to show how one person can consider himself a faithful Lutheran Christian, and one who recognizes the authority of the Bible, and still favor same-sex marriage and ordination of pastors living in committed same-sex relationships. I am not so naive as to think that everyone reading these little essays will magically agree with my point of view. I hope that I have struck a reasonable tone in a debate that so often degenerates into unreason, finger-pointing and even name-calling. I hope that my readers, whether they agree with me or not, are able to understand my position and how I have derived it. I further hope that I have not mischaracterized the positions of anyone who, in good conscience, holds an opposing opinion.

Last October, retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong published his Manifesto. It began:

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired....

So much of Spong's rhetoric resonates within me. A part of me would like to adopt his stance. But I am aware that while many Christians have taken a strong view, pro or con, concerning homosexuality, there remain many in the muddled middle who have not made up their minds. For their sake it is not time to stop talking.

I am also aware that in my beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, there are some who find the idea of Communion with those who would ordain partnered homosexuals intolerable. They are leaving to join the LCMC or NALC. If their consciences are so bound, then they should be allowed to go graciously. There are others who, though they may not agree with the CWA decisions, are willing to stay in conversation. For their sake it is not time to stop talking.

Earlier this month, Mary Hinkle Shore from Luther Seminary, Minneapolis, published a "Proposal for Engagement" on debating sexuality issues. She suggests concrete ways in which people on both sides of "the Gay Divide" can actually hear one another. The essay is worth reading in its entirety. Here are two excerpts:

Within the church--for example, within congregations whose members are deciding to leave or stay in the ELCA, or to give or withhold giving to a synod or churchwide ministry--are people trying to be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, their Savior and Lord. If you do not believe that someone is trying to be such a disciple, ask them. Figure out first that you all name the same name. Understand that this person on the other side, whose opinions may puzzle or repel you, is a brother or sister in Christ....

Do you believe that the other people in this conversation (the present conversation, there in your church basement, or the Sunday school classroom, not a "conversation" in the abstract) are Christians? If you do, what implications does this have for how you listen and talk to them? If you do not, what would they need to do to convince you that they are brothers and sisters of yours in Christ? Do others believe you are a Christian? What do they need from you to agree that, in Christ, you are in this together?

I have heard that both faculty and students at Luther are polarized over the CWA decisions. It is nice to hear a moderating voice coming from the midst of division.

When I first read Spong's Manifesto, I found myself thinking,"It's not time to end conversation yet." As I read Hinkle Shore's Proposal, I find myself thinking, "I hope it's not too late."





The illustration for this post is part of Storm Thorgerson's album artwork for Pink Floyd's The Division Bell. The felicitious phrase "the Gay Divide" is borrowed from Susan Hogan's website Pretty Good Lutherans.

A New Lutheran Church Body

"LOCAL OPTION" AND THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

The recommendations about sexuality and ministry standards adopted by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly (CWA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America were an attempt at compromise. Realizing that not everyone would accept clergy living in committed same-sex relationships, the Task Force created what has been called a "local option." Congregations that want to call same-sex partnered pastors are free to do so. Those that do not want to be served by such pastors are likewise free not to call them.

The "local option" has really always been in effect in the ELCA. Congregations have always had the right to call any qualified individual to serve as their pastor, or not. The difference is that the definitions of "qualified" individuals has changed to include those living in same-sex relationships.

It was a noble attempt at compromise, but like all compromises it was sure not to please everyone. Some of those who advocate for full inclusion of LGBT individuals in the church at every level have criticized the CWA decisions as creating a second class of pastors. On the other side of the issue are those who find it intolerable to be a part of a church body that would ordain partnered homosexuals.

Lutherans did not invent church-splitting, but we may have perfected it. In the aftermath of the 2009 CWA, some congregations have left the ELCA. Others are still in process of leaving. Some of them have joined Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), a group that moved out of the ELCA 11 years ago over the issue of full Communion with the Episcopal Church.

This week Lutheran CORE, a group that has worked within the ELCA to oppose the ordination of partnered homosexuals, announced that it is forming yet another Lutheran church body, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). NALC distinguishes itself from the LCMC by a less congregational polity.

Obie Holmen found this interesting tidbit in NALC's document, "A Vision and Plan for the North American Lutheran Church."

The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.

In other words, NALC is proposing a compromise on the issue of women's ordination. It smells a lot like a "local option" to me. Good luck with that.

I had lunch today with a group of my pastoral colleagues. One of them predicted that within a generation NALC and LCMC would stop ordaining women. Personally, I will not prognosticate. I will simply recall what someone said about those who forget the lessons of history.

Gay Sex Is Intrinsically Sinful

NO, REALLY, IT IS.

For the time being, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) is the second largest Lutheran Church Body in North America. We will see if this remains the case when the various splinters from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are done breaking away. It is fair, in a general way, to say that the LC-MS is more conservative than the ELCA, though I am not sure that the categories of conservative and liberal are the best way to understand our differences.

I am a Lutheran, born, bred, baptized, Sunday-schooled, confirmed, educated and ordained. I expect that I will be buried a Lutheran. Still, I say in all honesty, that if the LC-MS were the only Lutheran Church body, I would have to seek another denomination. If the LC-MS were the only Christian denomination, I would seek another religion. There is no place for me in the LC-MS and I think that most Missouri Synod clergy would agree with me on that.

So, it may surprise readers of this blog to learn that I agree with at least one thing that the LC-MS says about homosexuality. This statement comes from the LC-MS website:

...the [Missouri] Synod recognizes homophile behavior as intrinsically sinful.

I am not entirely clear as to what constitutes "homophile behavior." Same-sex hand holding? Kissing? (These things look different depending on one's cultural context). Feeling aroused looking at a Calvin Klein ad? It really does not matter, though. I appreciate that the LC-MS is careful to distinguish act from orientation. I will take "homophile behavior" to be an inelegant circumlocution for "gay sex."

And I agree with the Missouri Synod that gay sex is intrinsically sinful.

As you probably suspect, that is not the whole story. You see, I also believe that every human sex act is intrinsically sinful. Even sex between husband and wife in the context of a lawfully constituted and church-sanctioned marriage is intrinsically sinful. In fact, every human act is intrinsically sinful.

Human beings are sinners. We live in a state of sin, separated from God. Apart from God we can do nothing good. I would venture to say that there is always a human, selfish, sinful component to sexual expression.

So yes, gay sex is intrinsically sinful, but in that way it is no different than straight sex, or any other human act.






The illustration accompanying this post is a portion of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It is Michaelangelo's depiction of Adam and Eve being expelled from Eden. An advance reader of this post asked what it adds to the conversation. I replied, "What I hope to do with this post is advance the understanding of sin as the human condition, and to counter the assertion that gay sex is somehow more sinful than other human sex acts."

Further Reading

FOR YOUR EDIFICATION

Susan Hogan has a pretty good website at www.prettygoodlutherans.com. Actually, it is a lot better than pretty good. Yesterday, she posted the news that Lutheran CORE has announced its plan to organize as a new church body. Read about it here, and don't miss the comments.

Susan's story for February 17 made me wish I lived in Iowa.

Speaking of comments, fellow Lutheran pastor and blogger Robert Lee Bennight has a thoughtful post about CORE's repeated assertion "We're not leaving the ELCA. The ELCA has left us."

And in this post at www.theliberalspirit.com, Obie Holmen notes an irony. Dire predictions that ecumenical dialogue would be damaged if the ELCA voted to ordain non-celibate homosexuals have not come true. The Vatican remains in dialog with the ELCA. It is ELCA Lutherans who refuse to talk to one another.

I Believe

JUST IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHERE I STAND ON SEXUALITY ISSUES.

I believe that some people have an innate attraction to members of the same sex. This is an oversimplification, of course. Human sexuality is a spectrum that includes heterosexuality, homosexuality,bisexuality and transgenderism. Still, the best research indicates that homosexual orientation is not a disease, a mental disorder or a willful perversion. Homosexuality is a normally occurring subset of human sexuality.

I believe that sexual orientation is morally neutral. Homosexuality is no more "good" or "bad" than heterosexuality. Sexual acts have an ethical character; sexual orientation does not. I believe that sexual acts are unethical when they are abusive, coercive, degrading, demeaning, dishonest, unloving, uncommitted or damaging to the human psyche.

I believe that the Bible's condemnations of homosexual acts do not apply universally. The reasoning behind this belief can be found in some of my earlier posts, for example here, here, here, here, and here.

I believe that the Bible absolutely condemns unethical sexual acts.

I believe that the Bible does not give a single definition of marriage.

I believe that marriage is a positive good for society and that one of its important functions is to provide an ethical outlet for sexual expression. Even within marriage, sexual acts may be unethical if they are coercive, abusive, and so on. But marriage, being a covenant of commitment and mutual fidelity is a step toward ethical sexual practice.

I believe that marriage is essentially a social contract and is rightly regulated by the State. Whether a marriage contract can be entered into by persons of the same sex is a question for the State to decide.

I believe that same-sex marriage is a benefit to society.

I believe that some gay people are gifted for and called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. As I understand Lutheran theology, an individual's sense of call is ratified by the whole church through a process of education and examination, but that individual is not ordained until he or she is called to serve a particular congregation.


I believe ethical sexual practice includes celibacy outside of marriage and chastity within marriage. I believe that celibacy is a gift, and that not everyone, gay or straight, is so gifted. I believe, with the Apostle Paul, that it is "better to marry than to burn" with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9). I believe, with Martin Luther, that requiring celibacy for the clergy violates the freedom of the Gospel.

I believe that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be held to the same standard.


I believe that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is worthy of the call to ministry. We serve by God's call and by God's grace, not by our own merit.


I believe that some congregations may wish to call a pastor who lives in an ethical, committed same-sex relationship. I believe that they should be free to do so.


I believe that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality and ministry are right.

Bad Vestments

AND A PINA COLADA, MY FRIEND

If you have given up laughter for Lent, you'll want to avoid the Bad Vestments blog. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that bad taste knows no denominational bounds, you willl find all the confirmation you need there.







Not everyone shares, or even understands my musical taste. The subtitle for this post is a reference to the Steely Dan song, "Bad Sneakers."

Ethics and Morality

THEY AREN’T THE SAME EITHER

I recently finished reading Scott Gustafson’s latest book, Behind Good and Evil. It is a quick read, but well-reasoned, thoughtful and thought provoking. Gustafson is perhaps too fond of double exclamation marks (!!) but this is a quibble over style in a book that is long on substance.

Gustafson makes a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality draws lines between good and evil, right and wrong, worthy and unworthy. Morality serves the purposes of civilization, and civilization is built upon what Gustafson calls the “dominator model” with its unilateral relationships of power. The character of morality is death-dealing.

Gustafson argues persuasively and at length that Nazi Germany was neither a failure of morality nor a collapse of civilization. Rather the Third Reich, with its strict distinctions of acceptable and unacceptable persons, was hyper-moral. The Nazi bureaucracy, which exterminated unacceptable persons with horrible efficiency, was a sign of civilization.

Ethics, on the other hand, serves what Gustafson calls “partnership ways.” Ethics identifies with the marginalized, not the powerful. Ethics serves culture without civilization. It derives power from community and values humility, compassion and forgiveness. Ethics is life-giving.

According to Gustafson, Jesus was not moral, but he was ethical.

To Gustafson’s insights I would tentatively add a few of my own. It seems to me that morality is always imposed from the outside. Ethics arises from within. Some individuals, feeling themselves or the world around them to be out of control, require an external sense of morality to feel secure. I understand the Gospel to be a message of eternal security that frees us from the need for an imposed morality and opens us to the possibility of ethical living.

Scott Gustafson’s descriptions of ethics and morality should give Christians pause as they consider how to deal with questions of homosexuality, and more importantly, how to deal with homosexual persons.





You might want to check out Scott Gustafson’s website, www.behindgoodandevil.com. He has several resources posted there, including a downloadable essay titled “On Good and Evil”, which is a good introduction to his thinking.

Guilt And Shame

THEY’RE NOT THE SAME

Tigers do not just have stripy fur. They have stripy skin. If you were to shave a tiger bald, it would still have stripes.

Not that I recommend trying to shave a tiger.

Guilt is a sense of remorse over something one has done wrong. Guilt can be a positive thing. Guilt can lead a person to make amends for the wrong done and to seek ways to avoid future wrongdoing. Guilt can lead to repentance.

Shame is a sense of remorse over something one is. I cannot think of any situation in which shame is positive, useful or helpful. Shame, unless it is overcome, leads to despair.

Lutherans, by the way, are pretty good at shame. We have inherited from Martin Luther a deeply pessimistic view of human nature. Luther taught that we are sinners through-and-through, unable to do any good apart from God. Luther also taught that God has provided the cure for our sinfulness in the cross of Jesus Christ. So, while we are good at shame, we also proclaim that God removes our shame. We need not despair.

Sexuality lies close to the core of our being. Our sexual orientation is a state of being. We may repent of sexual acts, but we cannot repent of sexual nature. Too often persons of homosexual orientation have been made to feel shame for what they are. If the statistics are to be believed, homosexuality is a significant risk factor for adolescent suicide. Shame leads to despair.

The best research and science tell us that our sexual orientation is innate in us. So-called “reparative therapies” which attempt to change homosexual orientation do not work and can be harmful. “Reparative therapy” is like trying to shave the stripes off of a tiger.

Christians, it is time that we stopped inflicting shame on persons of homosexual orientation.









Just for fun, can you find "the hidden tiger" in the illustration that accompanies this post? I found the picture, and you can find the answer, at this website.

Affirming Committed Same Sex Relationships Does Not Contradict The Authority Of Scripture

REALLY.

Rev. Dr. Brian Peterson, Professor of New Testament at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, has written a clear, succinct six page paper in which he explains how the ELCA can respect the authority of Scripture without condemning committed, faithful homosexual relationships. A sample:

In Romans 1, Paul similarly uses assumptions from first century culture, medicine, and science, particularly an assumption that same-gender intercourse is the result of runaway passions. We should hear in this text the claim that life lived apart from God leads to disordered relationships. We should hear in this text that sexual addictions, which our culture seems so good at promoting and which consume so many lives, are in fact contrary to God’s will. We should hear in this text a clear word against any society obsessed with how sexually active people are and which abandons fidelity in relationships for the sake of sexual self-gratification. However, the text does not require us to affirm the 1st century cultural assumption that all same-gender intercourse is the result of runaway passion or to conclude that those same-gender couples in our congregations must be secret idolaters, any more than Joshua requires us to affirm that the sun goes around the earth. This stance is not an abandoning of the authority of Scripture over the church, but in fact results from taking the text and its authority seriously enough to read carefully and to notice the point that Paul was actually making.

Read the entire paper here. It is worth it.






I found Dr. Peterson's paper through Obie Holman's blog. He found the link through Ted Sitz's blog.

Slide Slide Slippity Slide

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE REVISTED

I do not usually put much stock in slippery slope arguments. The idea that allowing A will lead inevitably downward to B is a logical fallacy. Also, it is my observation that slippery slope arguments are generally based in fear, or intended to create fear.

Navigating around the ’net recently, I paddled into a backwater of American Protestantism with which I had only passing familiarity. There I found a strange, but classic, use of the slippery slope argument.

Douglas Wilson apparently has some Evangelical cred. He is pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and a founder of New Saint Andrews College. He debated militant atheist Christopher Hitchens in the pages of Christianity Today magazine, in a book and in person for the movie cameras. So far, so good.

I was surprised, though, when I learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers Wilson something of a hate-monger. The reason? Wilson, who describes himself as a “paleo-Confederate,” has written defending, on biblical grounds, the institution of slavery as practiced in the American South.

While the Bible is, at least in some of its parts, pro-slavery, I found myself wondering why anyone would write in defense of Southern slavery on any grounds. Then I found this statement on the Wikipedia page about Wilson:

He has said that he intended to defend the once traditional biblical approval of slavery since, in his view, disregarding that tradition will lead to disregarding biblical sanction against homosexuality as well.

Wow. Just wow.

Do away with a biblical defense of slavery and it will lead to the approval of homosexuality. That actually sounds like progress to me.

Maybe we are on a slippery slope, but rather than sliding inevitably downhill we are actually scrambling slowly and with difficulty uphill toward full inclusion and civil rights for all people.








The title for this post was taken from the chorus of Coolio’s recording “Fantastic Voyage.” Though I am no fan of gangsta rap with its profanity and violent imagery, I have to admit that the “slide slide slippity slide” refrain is catchy. The Slippery Slope image was borrowed from this website.

Dear Anonymous

A BELATED REPLY TO MY FIRST NEGATIVE COMMENTER

When I started this blog I decided that I would post any and all comments, whether they sided with me or not, as long as they were stated respectfully. Personal attacks, bad language or name-calling are not allowed, but pretty much anything else goes. I also decided that I would not reply to every comment that I received. I did not want to get caught up in a back-and-forth of endless argumentation that would consume my time and energy and deflect the planned trajectory of this blog. So when this post received my first negative comment, I posted it, but said nothing in reply. I would like to revisit it now. It may be a bit after the fact, but my anonymous commenter made some points that I feel I should have addressed. Let me quote the comment in full:

Anonymous said...

Yet, in our current society there is a "cultural conditioning" to view incest as unacceptable. Should we learn to understand this differently as well?

Concerning judging, there are numerous examples throughout Scripture showing God's clear judgment against homosexual *behavior* (while still loving of those with same-sex attraction difficulties). The ELCA, however, views its own politically-correct interpretations of Scripture as higher authority than the Scriptures themselves-and therein lies the problem.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your comment. It is nice to know that someone is reading my work.

I think that you invoke a variation on the Slippery Slope argument. If we allow for gay marriage or homosexual clergy, what is to prevent us from approving of incest? (Some of the more histrionic versions of this argument suggest that the Churchwide Assembly Decisions will open the floodgates to pedophilia and bestiality). There is no reason to think that allowing for consensual same-sex relations will lead to any of these things.

I have actually encountered arguments favoring ethical, consensual incest. I disagree with them for three reasons. First, is the genetic danger of inbreeding. Second, and more important, is my experience working as chaplain to a home for troubled children. Many of the young people I met there had been sexually abused by members of their own families. While ethical, consensual incestuous relationships may exist in theory, in the real world I have only encountered examples of abusive, coercive incest. Third, an important function of marriage is establishing a legal family relationship for the purposes of inheritance, property rights, etc. In the case of blood relations, this already exists.

As for the “numerous examples” of God’s judgment on homosexual behavior in Scripture, there are, in fact, five passages that deal with the subject. I have treated all of them in various posts.

Finally, as regards the ELCA’s “politically-correct” interpretation of Scripture, I would point out that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Even the most abject literalism is a form of interpretation. What you call “the Scriptures themselves” is, in fact, your interpretation of the Scriptures. As I have tried to establish by blogging here, the ELCA reads Scripture according to sound Lutheran principles. Understanding the Bible as not only God’s word, but also the product of a particular culture and time, we are not bound to perpetuate homophobic interpretations today. Sometimes, dear Anonymous, political correctness is political, but sometimes it is correct.

God bless you,

Brant

Garrison Keillor Says That We Are A Quiet People

QUIESCENCE (n.): INACTIVITY, STILLNESS, QUIETUDE, A MOTIONLESS STATE

It is not easy to be a Lutheran. For one thing, Garrison Keillor makes fun of us all the time. For another Lutherans stand slightly outside the mainstream of American Christianity, which is tinged with Calvinism and Evangelicalism. Most importantly, it is not easy to be Lutheran because the doctrine of justification by grace is absolutely central to Lutheranism and this doctrine brings dangers with it.

In a recent post, I wrote about the temptation to works righteousness that confronts Lutherans. It is much easier to proclaim the sort of legalism that makes justification a matter of our own doing than to maintain a strict doctrine of justification by grace. Nevertheless Lutheran theology recognizes both human sinfulness and God’s sovereignty in such a way that we reject all forms of works righteousness. God alone can save us.

There are two other dangers that come from believing that we are justified by grace alone. The first, and it is common among Lutherans, is quiescence. If we can do nothing to save ourselves, then it is tempting just to do nothing. Our motivation for missions and good works has to be found in gratitude not guilt. We share our goods and God’s good news not from a sense of obligation, nor out of a desire to win God’s approval, nor to justify ourselves, but only out of thankfulness to God for the gift of grace.

The next danger facing Lutherans is antinomianism. From the Greek anti (“against”) and nomos (“law”), antinomianism is the idea that, if we can do nothing to justify ourselves, then we can do whatever we please without regard for the law. I suspect that historically Lutherans have been accused of antinomianism more than they have engaged in it. From Martin Luther on, Lutherans have held the law in high regard and recognized its proper uses.

First, the Law gives order to our life in community. Second, the Law convicts us of our sinful nature and drives us to seek God’s grace. There is a third use of the Law mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions. For those who believe, the Law provides a guideline for a life of sanctification. Since the Law’s demands are always beyond human ability, I observe that this third use of the Law shades into the second, and drives us to seek God’s grace again and again.

What the Law does not do is save us.

As one who advocates for same-sex unions and for full inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the Church, I am sensitive to the charge of antinomianism. While I do not believe that the Bible’s condemnations of homosexual behavior still apply in the light of our contemporary understanding, it does not mean that I reject the Law. Far from it. I advocate for homosexuals to be upright and responsible in their relationships by the same standard applied to heterosexuals.

The illustration for this post is the cover of Garrison Keillor's book Life Among the Lutherans.

Worth Reading

Back on January 28, Obie Holmen blogged on the question "Is Lutheran CORE Fundamentalist?" He does a nice job of refuting CORE's attitude toward the Bible. Click here to read about it.

Hesitant? Here is a teaser:

There are smart and educated persons in CORE, and they ought to know better than to spout such unscholarly and fossilized views of the canon coupled with accusations that the rest of us are unbiblical. It is not that we don’t take the Bible seriously, as CORE alleges, it is that we take it too seriously to avoid challenging questions informed by reason, experience, and the lessons of scholarship, both traditional and modern.

A Subtle Form of Works Righteousness

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (NRSV)

The doctrine of justification by grace through faith apart from works of the law is absolutely central to Lutheran theology. We cannot make ourselves right with God. Only God can save us. Lutheranism stands or falls on the truth of this doctrine.

Lutheran pastors, preachers and theologians must guard this doctrine closely because it is not easy to maintain. Children of Adam and Eve that we are, we like to imagine ourselves in control. We desire to be like God (Genesis 3:5).We like to think that we can justify ourselves.

Works righteousness is the false idea that we can save ourselves by our own good deeds. Works righteousness is appealing to us. We like to think that we can do the right things, say the right prayers, perform the right rituals, and God will reckon it to us as righteousness.

I have even heard subtle forms of works righteousness proclaimed from Lutheran pulpits. Anytime the Law and Gospel are confused, anytime a preacher tells us what we "must" or "ought" or "should" do to please God, it is probably works righteousness being proclaimed.

Sometimes I hear it said that one cannot be a “gay Christian” as if, somehow, a sexual orientation is the opposite of a religious faith. There is an apples and oranges logical fallacy at work here. One cannot be a gay heterosexual. One cannot be a Christian Muslim. But there is no contradiction in being both gay and Christian.

I recently listened to a sermon in which I heard the preacher say that God will heal Christians of homosexuality. The problem with this idea is that homosexuality is not a disease. Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation. It is not something to be healed of. Besides, from what I have read, neither conversion to Christianity nor long-term “reparative therapy” is effective in straightening gays.

Again, sometimes I hear it said that one can be gay and Christian but, because homosexual acts are “inherently sinful,” a gay Christian must refrain from having sex. Homosexual Christians must remain celibate. Do you see the subtle works righteousness in this notion? It is as if refraining from gay sex makes a homosexual right with God.

That is not good theology. At least it is not good Lutheran theology.








The picture of Martin Luther’s seal in stained glass was taken from the website of Oakbrook Esser Studios.

With Apologies...

...TO ALL OF MY FRIENDS CALLED STEVE, BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY.



I have been looking at the second chapter of Genesis, which I maintain is not a historical account, but a description, in story form, of the human condition. Adam and Eve are us.

When God makes Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam, delighted, exclaims:

“This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh….” (Genesis 2:23)

Then the narrator comments, “For this reason, a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

This describes what is, for the vast majority of humans, their experience of being attracted to the opposite sex. Please note, however, that this is a description and not a prescription.

Sometimes this passage is taken as a mandate for heterosexual marriage, or a sanction against homosexual attraction. A bumper sticker slogan says, “It’s Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.”

Yes, God made Adam and Eve (us) and most Adams are attracted to Eves. We can all agree that this is a good thing. If men and women were not attracted to one another, none of us would be here. Even Big Gay Steve can get on board with that idea.

But, here is the thing: God made Steve too. God made some Adams to be attracted to other Adams. Genesis 2 describes a norm, but does not prescribe that norm.

God, according to Genesis 2:18, made Eve because it was “not good for the man to be alone.” Human beings are made to live in intimate and caring partnership with one another. Most of us desire partnership between an Adam and an Eve. Some of us, however, desire partnership between an Adam and a Steve.

It is not good for Steve to be alone, either.





The Scripture quotes, as usual, are from the New Revised Standard Version. The illustration is my own mash-up of the elder Cranach's Adam and Albrecht Durer’s Adam. "Big Gay Steve" is a reference to the character Big Gay Al on South Park. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched South Park, but I assure you that I did not laugh.

Much.