Another Good Read

The always interesting online magazine Religion Dispatches has taken notice of the sexuality controversies in the ELCA in an article titled "A Reforming Tradition Struggles with Change "by Brent Hege of Butler University. A teaser:

What are the issues at stake in these discussions? First, I put the term “confessional” in quotes because I consider its use in this context to be disingenuous; it implies that only those Lutherans who are opposed to the full inclusion of LGBTQ Lutherans are faithful to the historic confessions of the Lutheran Church (The Book of Concord). It also assumes that the supporters of full inclusion are apostates who willfully abandon scripture, tradition, and the confessions to appease contemporary cultural sensibilities.

Read the entire article here.

Really, read it.

Straw Wars

OR, A TALE OF TWO ICEBERGS

The Straw Man argument is a logical fallacy. You hear it a lot on political talk radio. It goes like this: Party A makes a recognizable caricature of Party B's position. Party A then argues against the caricature as if it were Party B's position. Straw Man arguments can carry a certain emotional resonance. They can even fool the inattentive. But careful observers will recognize that while Party A has kicked the stuffing out of a straw man, Party B's true position is left unscathed.

I came across a classic straw man on the Faithful Transition website. If you are not familiar with it, the website's masthead describes its purpose thus:

Sponsored by the WordAlone Network, this website is meant to provide guidance to individuals and congregations who are seeking to affiliate with LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) and/or the new church body NALC (North American Lutheran Church) being designed by Lutheran CORE.

I actually do not object to Faithful Transition's purpose. For those whose conscience is so bound that they can no longer remain members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), some helpful guidance might be useful. But about that straw man, the cartoon below was posted on May 15 by Pastor Steve King under the title "We've Hit What?"



I have to wonder just how this cartoon furthers Faithful Transition's stated purpose. Maybe half-truths, misstatements and distortions of this sort make it easier for the disaffected to leave the ELCA.

Understand, I am about as ELCA as a person can get. I agree with the 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality and standards for ordination. I even agree with the "local option" which allows congregations to refuse same-sex partnered clergy. I know that this cartoon is supposed to represent the ELCA's positions, but frankly, I do not recognize myself in it.

I have a strong understanding of biblical authority. It is not identical to WordAlone's, of course. I like to think that it is more reasoned and consistent. I reject "Lack of Biblical Authority" as a label that sticks to the ELCA.

I have argued elsewhere against the idea that the ELCA has embraced Universalism. So, "Universalist Rejection of Christ" is nonsensical as far as I'm concerned.

As for "False Gospel of 'Affirmation'" I am not entirely sure what that means. It is another rather nebulous charge along the lines of "Gospel of Inclusion" or "Gospel of Conformity." I would guess that "Affirmation" is supposed to mean something like Gospel without Law. If so, then this, too, is a distortion of both my position, and, as I understand it, the position of the ELCA.

When I first saw the cartoon, I thought, "Two can play at that." So I did Google search for images of icebergs, found one at this website, and used MS Paint to add some text. The result:




When I got done with my little art project, I looked at it and thought, "I'll bet that WordAloners looking at my cartoon would recognize themselves in it about as much as I recognized myself in their cartoon." Building straw men is fun. Kicking them to bits is even more fun, but in the end, what purpose does it serve? It only occasions anger and creates division. It may also violate that pesky Eighth Commandment, you know, the one about bearing false witness.

So, here's the deal. WordAlone, cut the crap. If you must leave the ELCA, leave. If your conscience is bound so that you must stay and disagree, then stay and disagree. But let's all quit building straw men, shall we? Let's show a little respect for one another's positions.

I mean, I will if you will.

Job and God

OR, HOW JOB CONFOUNDS OUR ORTHODOXIES

The Book of Job is a wonderfully rich theological treatise on human suffering. It seems to me that it is woefully underused, and sometimes misused, by Christians.

The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), the cycle of Scripture readings used by many mainline churches, prescribes two passages from the Book of Job in the course of three years. There is an option in year B of the RCL for another four "semi-continuous" readings from Job. (I may need to take that option in 2012). Other than that, our Evangelical Lutheran Worship hymnal has a reading from Job in the Easter Vigil service and also suggests four and one-half verses from Job as a possible lection for use at a funeral.

Since the Book of Job is made up of long and carefully reasoned arguments, it is difficult, I think, to take excerpts from it for liturgical use.

Occasionally I will see someone suggest that Job 26:7 "proves" scientific knowledge on the part of its author:

[God] stretches out the north over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing.

And again, Young Earth Creationists will sometimes use the Book of Job's description of Behemoth as "proof" that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on earth.

[The Lord said,] "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron...." (Job 40:15-20)

I am not entirely sure what the Behemoth is supposed to be, but on the basis of sound scientific evidence, I am quite sure that human beings and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. It is sad to say, but those Flintstones cartoons I loved as a child had it wrong.

The Book of Job, for all its theological wealth, does not yield much for Christians who mine the Bible for proof-texts.

I think, though, that the main reason that Job is so little and so poorly used by Christians is this: Job's three friends represent a kind of orthodoxy. In their arguments they defend a traditional view of God's nature. At the end of the book, however, they are shown to be utterly wrong. The Book of Job contradicts and questions the orthodoxy of a large portion of the Hebrew Bible.

Maybe this is what makes Job such rich reading. Maybe this is Job's enduring value: it encourages us to question our own orthodoxies. Maybe this is the lesson we should take away from the Book of Job: no matter how orthodox our conception of God, God is something greater, something more. God cannot be contained in our doctrines.

It's in the Bible.




I found William Blake's illustration of the Behemoth and Leviathan here. Scripture quotes in this post were taken from the New King James Version.

Job & Co.

I read from the Bible every day. At least I try to. Last Friday I re-read the Book of Job. I do not know how many times I have read that book now. I love it. It is a wonderful, deep, philosophical treatise on theodicy, that is, the problem of unjust suffering.

The book begins with a prose prologue describing Job as a wealthy and righteous man. God loves Job, but Satan, who in this book is a member of the heavenly court, argues that it is easy for Job to be righteous. Take away Job's material blessings, Satan says, and Job will curse God. God allows Satan to do what he proposes and, in a series of disasters, Job loses everything: flocks, herds, servants, even his ten children, and finally his health. Job is reduced to sitting on a dungheap, scraping his festering skin with a potsherd. His wife advises him to "curse God and die." In spite of all this Job does no wrong.

Three of Job's friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar come to sit with their sick companion. After a week of mournful silence, Job speaks and the book begins in earnest. What follows is a series of poetic dialogues in which Job's friends defend the idea, found in Deuteronomy and the related literature of the Hebrew Bible, that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. Job must have done some wrong, they say. Job, in reply, defends his innocence and cries out to understand his suffering.

After Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar have had their say, a fourth companion, a young man named Elihu speaks. Since Elihu is not mentioned before this point in the story, nor is he mentioned again after his speech, scholars think that his part was inserted by a later hand. Elihu scolds both Job and his companions and defends God in words that foreshadow what comes next.

After Elihu's speech, the Lord speaks to Job out of a whirlwind. God never answers the question of why Job has suffered. Rather, the speech is a statement of the creator God's sovereignty. Some readers find this satisfying. Other readers think that God dodges the question.

The last section of the book is an epilogue, again in prose. God restores Job's health and double his fortune. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar are put in their place. Job lives a long and righteous life.

I love the book of Job with its penetrating questions, its soaring poetry and its grand theophany. When I finished reading it again last week, I found myself wondering why such a wonderful theological book of the Bible is so little used by Christians.

I will take that up in my next post.




The picture of Job and his friends was painted by Guy Rowe. I found it here.

Katie Bar the Door!

Jon Pahl, Professor of the History of Christianity at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philedelphia , pulls no punches in his criticism of Lutheran CORE. In an article for the Journal of Lutheran Ethics, he writes:

Lutheran CORE claims to represent Lutheran orthodoxy, but...in fact abandons historic Lutheranism at crucial turns in favor of an American civil religion. This accretion of an American imprint on CORE's version of Lutheranism mirrors...how CORE leaders have repeatedly accused faithful ELCA leaders of having themselves sold out to "America." Even more, the leaders of Lutheran CORE, because they assert a self-righteous American moralism about sex and marriage as a litmus test of ecclesiastical purity, confuse law and gospel, and imperil the clear truth of salvation by grace through faith that is the actual core of historical and confessional Lutheran teaching. When teaching about sex replaces teaching about salvation as a defining mark of the church, something has clearly gone severely awry.

The full article (about 10 pages in length, not counting footnotes) can, and should, be read here.

Nothing to see here...

MOVE ALONG

While I have nothing particular to say today, I have come across some posts on other blogs that might be of interest to you.

On her Progressively Lutheran blog, Kelly picked up on something I said and has written a thoughtful post about the way in which Scriptural Authority is invoked to end conversation. Let the following paragraph serve as an appetizer:

It’s easy to label things when you claim Scriptural Authority: Churched vs. Unchurched. Biblical vs. Unbibical. You get the picture. There is no room for debate. Ever. It’s a cheap and dirty way to claim the high ground. It’s like playing Rock, Paper, Scissors (with or without Dyanmite, Lizards or Spock) and someone hauling out NUCLEAR BOMB! I mean, how do you counter that? You can’t. It’s a cheap way to declare, without actually saying, “I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and I don’t even want to listen to what you have to say.”

Read the rest of Kelly's post here.


(By the way, Kelly, if you are reading this, I think the word you wanted was "smut" and I like cheese, too).




Not particularly Lutheran, but still of interest is an article at Religion Dispatches concerning some high profile Gospel singers who have come out as gay. The following quote shows how some heteronormative Christians make false assumptions about same-sex attraction:

“It never occurred to me that I was in something that should be labeled as a ‘struggle,’” [Jennifer] Knapp said. “The struggle I’ve had has been with the church acknowledging me as a human being.”

Knapp’s response echoed that of another gay Christian singer, the black gospel performer Tonéx, who came out in a television interview last fall. “Have you struggled with homosexuality?” the interviewer asks Tonéx. “Not ‘struggled,’” Tonéx replies. “It wasn’t a struggle.”

The rest of this article can be found here.

Finally at the MetroLutheran website, the estimable David Preus, who was president of the American Lutheran Church at the time of the merger that formed the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, explains why he disagrees with the ChurchWide Assembly decisions regarding ordination of same-sex partnered clergy and why he chooses to remain a part of the ELCA. A teaser from his article:

I do not believe this matter is of sufficient confessional import to require division among disagreeing brethren. There are faithful, Bible-believing, confessional Lutherans on both sides of this issue. The debate will continue.

Read the rest of Pastor Preus's article here.

Please Read This

Pastor Robert Lee Bennight, whose blog I read, and whom I have met, has written a passionate, honest and important piece. Read it here.

In the end, I have minor disagreements with Pastor Bennight, but I respect his thoughtful and pastoral approach to difficult issues.

God bless you, Pastor Bennight.

People Who Live in Glass Houses...

...SHOULDN'T THROW BIBLES

Over at www.prettygoodlutherans.com, Susan Hogan has published a press release written by Betsy Carlson, trumpeting the new directions being taken by WordAlone Ministries (formerly the WordAlone Network) following their April 19-20 convention. You can read the article in its entirety here.

I would call your attention to the fourth paragraph which reads:

The convention affirmed that Word Alone will continue to serve congregations, groups and individuals committed to proclaiming the Word of God and to remaining faithful to the Bible, although it ended its attempts to reform the ELCA after its unbiblical decisions on marriage and family and on new standards for ministers at the churchwide assembly last August.

Note particularly the word "unbiblical" in that sentence. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that whenever someone uses the word "biblical" or "unbiblical" what they mean is "the Bible as I interpret it."

So if someone uses the phrase "the biblical doctrine" what they mean is "the Bible as I interpret it supports the doctrine that I teach." Again, if someone uses the expression "the unbiblical practice" what they mean is "the Bible as I interpret it condemns the thing that you are doing." I have found this to be invariably true.

Claiming that something is "biblical" does not automatically give one the moral high ground. One can speak as meaningfully about the "biblical practice" of slavery or genocide, as one can speak of a "biblical doctrine" of marriage.

Returning to Betsy Clark's press release, we read:

Earlier in the day, Word Alone President Jaynan Clark presented a new vision for Word Alone Ministries in a dynamic report that included her falling to her knees and repenting for anything Word Alone failed to do that the Lord called it to do in the past 10 years.

Still on her knees, she prayed, “Otherwise continue to call us, guide us; send us leaders, evangelists and (on) a mission to go forward and to get beyond the nonsense of . . . celebration of sin.”

This is the sort of histrionic display that observers have come to expect from Jaynan Clark. Frankly, it brings entertainment value to the sport of WordAlone watching. I will point out, not as a matter of judgment but only as a point of fact, that Jaynan Clark is a divorced, female pastor.

The last paragraph of the WordAlone press release says:

Another important ministry development project has resulted in Lutheran CORE which provides affiliation options for Lutherans who are opposed to the recent unbiblical policies being implemented by the ELCA.

There's that word "unbiblical" again. It is an interesting, some might say "ironic," accusation coming from an organization headed by a divorced, female pastor. You see, there are plenty of Christians, some of them Lutheran, who would say that a divorced, female pastor is "unbiblical." Some might even go so far as to say that an organization headed by a divorced, female pastor is indulging in "the nonsense of...celebration of sin."




For the record, I do not object to the ordination of women, divorced persons, or same-sex partnered individuals. And yes, I am aware of the fact that I am a plank-eyed speck-picker. The picture of the glass house came from this website. There are more pictures there as well. You might want to check them out. They're pretty cool. All I can say is, if I lived there, I would hang some curtains.

Culture v. Reality

NOW THAT I AM AN ADULT, I HAVE PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS

When I was a child I was taught that homosexuals were perverts, predators and pedophiles. Back when I spoke and thought and reasoned like a child, I was taught the old stereotypes: Gay men were lisping, mincing and effeminate. Lesbians were masculine and butch. In other words, when I was young, I was taught the standard myths and misconceptions that were current in the heteronormative culture of the time.

Now I know better. Now I have had the experience of knowing homosexual men and lesbian women.

Sadly, some of the old myths still hold currency. A recent article at Huffington Post quotes the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as blaming the Roman Catholic church's sex abuse scandals on homosexuality.

"I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true," said Bertone. "That is the problem."

Cardinal Bertone should know better. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same. In fact, the majority of pedophiles self-identify as heterosexuals. Click here to read a good article on the subject.

The social, behavioral and biological sciences now tell us that same-sex attraction is a variation of sexuality that occurs normally among a minority of human beings. Homosexuals are not perverts. Their sexuality is a not a choice. Homosexuality is not a sickness. Homosexuals do not recruit. The old myths are just myths.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been charged with "cultural conformity" because it has voted to roster pastors living in "publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous" same-sex relationships. In previous posts, I have argued that those charging the ELCA with cultural conformity have made their own compromises with culture, and that the relationship between church and culture is not so one-sided as the critics suggest.

Now I assert that the ELCA is not conforming to culture. It is conforming to reality.






Illustrating this post is the title slide from Boys Beware, a 1961 "educational film" produced by Sid Davis. This film, which can be viewed in its 10 minute entirety here, promulgated many of the specious myths and stereotypes once believed about homosexuality.

Wow! The word "heteronormative" is in Blogger's spell checker!

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."