SAWC

SOME SAY "SAUCY"

When a congregation chooses to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, sometimes a minority of the congregation wishes to remain faithful to the ELCA. In these cases, sometimes, the synod forms a Synodically Authorized Worshiping Community (SAWC). The SAWC concept, as I understand it, grew out of the ELCA mission strategy adopted by our Churchwide Assembly in 2003. A SAWC may be a precursor to a new congregation.

In the comments to my previous post, Kelly gave a link to the website for Peace Lutheran, the SAWC being formed for the remnant of her congregation that remains faithful to the ELCA. It's a great website and an exciting new ministry. I did not want the Kelly's link to get lost in the comments thread, so here it is!

Join me in praying for Peace Lutheran, and for all of the SAWC's being formed as congregations disaffected by the ELCA's sexuality policies leave our church body.

On the subject of sexuality, Justin takes on some of the specious reasoning used to condemn homosexuals. Read about it at his Darthjedi blog.





The fireworks came from Peace Lutheran's website. Appropriate for a SAWC celebrating its first worship service on America's Independence Day!

An Eerie Silence

*CRICKETS CHIRPING*

I know that I have been oddly quiet lately, and I apologize to my loyal readers. Both of you. My silence is not because I have nothing to say. Right or wrong, good or bad, I nearly always have something to say. Nor is it because nothing is going on.

There is, for instance, a fascinating story of homosexual self-loathing and unethical journalism that you can read about at prettygoodlutherans.

There is also a recent meltdown via email from WordAlone president Jaynan Clark to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. I think Clark's message highlights the fact that the divisions in the ELCA are not just about sexuality, nor even about the interpretation of Scripture. They are also, and perhaps primarily, a clash of worldviews. Read about it at Obie Holmen's blog.

So what is keeping me from blogging more? Just that I am trying to buy a new home and sell an old one. Keeping my house in showcase condition is a never ending task. For a while, then, my posts will be infrequent and sporadic.





I snagged the picture of the world's most famous cricket here. Wanna buy my house?

Sarah's Sharing The Love!

ALL ABOARD!

My friend Sarah, who blogs as Unholy Pastor Mommy, is riding the positive train. She has sent letters of support to our Presiding Bishop, our synodical bishop and to Carlos Pena, Vice President of the ELCA.

You can read her letters here and here. I love her enthusiasm.

If you have been reading my blog and have not yet sent messages of encouragement to your ELCA, synodical and even congregational leaders, what is stopping you? Let's share the love!



A personal note: Sarah beat me two out of three games of cribbage today. I will have revenge. I found the cribbage image at this website.

Kelly's Sharing the Love

HOW ABOUT YOU?

At her Progressively Lutheran blog, Kelly has published the text of her letters of support to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson and ELCA Vice President Carlos Pena (which is properly spelled with a tilde over the "n", but in spite of Kelly's helpful hints, I still can't figure out how to make it work here).

I always enjoy Kelly's lucid writing. Here is an example from her letter to Bishop Hanson:

I fully support the ELCA’s inclusive policies and commend the Assembly’s bold actions. I firmly believe that we have made the right decision, and I have never been prouder to be raising my daughters to be strong members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

I apologize that this letter is long overdue and can never truly express my deep gratitude toward our Church and its unwavering stand to welcome all regardless of age, gender, nationality, socioeconomic class or sexual identity.

ELCA leadership has been the target of much criticism and hate, while positive messages have been few. It takes minutes to write a letter and costs just 44 cents to mail it. Email is even cheaper.

If you support the ELCA's sexuality statement and the rostering of same-sex partnered clergy, why not follow Kelly's example and let our leadership know?

And My Letter to My Synodical Bishop

This letter is a little longer and more personal as I have a personal relationship with my synodical bishop.

Bishop Gary Wollersheim
Northern Illinois Synod
103 W. State Street
Rockford, IL 61101

June 10, 2010

Dear Bishop Wollersheim,

The turmoil in the ELCA following the 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding human sexuality and the rostering of same-sex partnered pastors is unprecedented in my experience. These have been trying times for many of my colleagues in ministry and their congregations. I am writing to express my appreciation for the encouragement and leadership that you and your staff provide.

I am proud to be a member of the ELCA and of the Northern Illinois Synod. I am particularly grateful for the support that you have given to those who wish to remain faithful to the ELCA when their congregations are voting to affiliate with other church bodies. The five Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities formed in our synod are a blessing to us. I am thankful, too, for the ministry of support that you have provided for congregations which have stayed in the ELCA but have been split over votes to leave.

Bishop, I am sure that these are difficult times for you, and I want you to know that I pray for you and your staff regularly. I look forward to seeing you at Synod Assembly. May God bless you.

Sincerely,


Rev. Brant Clements

What do you think? Will Carlos Pena, and the bishops be encouraged by my letters? Wouldn't they be encouraged by a letter from you, too? So quit reading blogs, open up that word processor and write a note of support to our ELCA leaders...and, oh yeah, I know for a fact that a little note of encouragement would make your pastor's day!

My Letter to Bishop Mark Hanson

This one is a little shorter than the letter I wrote to Carlos Pena. I feel sure that Bishop Hanson does not need to be burdened with more reading, but I have to think that he would appreciate a word of encouragement.

Bishop Mark Hanson
Office of the Presiding Bishop
8765 W. Higgins Road
Chicago, IL 60631

June 10, 2010

Dear Bishop Hanson,

I am writing to thank you for your leadership of our ELCA through the difficult times that have followed the 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions concerning human sexuality and the rostering of same-sex partnered clergy.

I believe that the ELCA has done the right thing and I continue in my support of our church body.

Please know that I hold you and all of our ELCA leaders in my prayers. God bless you.

Sincerely,



Rev. Brant Clements

My Letter to Carlos Pena, Vice President of the ELCA

In keeping with the intent of my last post, here is the text of the letter I have written to Carlos Pena. I hope that others will join me in expressing their support for our ELCA's leadership at the Churchwide, synodical and congregational levels.

Mr. Carlos E. Pena
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
8765 W. Higgins Road
Chicago, IL 60631

June 10, 2010

Dear Mr. Pena,

Pastor Justin Johnson recently blogged about some of his observations from the Upstate New York Synod Assembly. Among his notes, he cited you as saying that the ELCA has not received many letters of support following the 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality and the rostering of same-sex partnered clergy. Here, belatedly, is one such letter.

I believe that the ELCA has done the right thing. I believe that the voting members of the 2009 Churchwide assembly acted bravely. I believe that their decisions represent a faithful application of Scripture, Lutheran tradition, theological reflection and discernment of God's activity in our world. I am proud to be a member of the ELCA.

Thank you, Mr. Pena, for your leadership of our church body in this difficult time. Please know that I hold you, and all of the ELCA's leaders in my prayers. May God bless you abundantly.

Sincerely,


Rev. Brant Clements

I cannot figure out how to put a tilde over an "n" in blogger. The hard copy of the letter above has Carlos Pena's name spelled correctly. My letters of support to Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson and my synodical Bishop Gary Wollersheim will be the subject of posts to come.

Let's Share The Love

On his DarthJedi blog, Justin shared his observations from the Upstate New York Synod Assembly. Concerning t a presentation made by Carlos Pena, Vice-president of the ELCA, he wrote:

"Another interesting thing [Pena] said was that he has received almost no letters from supporters of the decisions made in August, so supporters send some letters!"

Justin's idea got picked up in the comments to this thread on Obie Holmen's blog, Spirit of a Liberal.


This is not an easy time to be in leadership in the ELCA. Bishops and their staffs are on the receiving end of a lot of anger. I am sure that a few words of appreciation and support would go a long way.

So, here is my plan. I am going to write letters to Carlos Pena, Bishop Hansen and my synodical bishop. I will tell them that I support the ELCA and its 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding sexuality. I will thank them for their leadership and tell them that I pray for them regularly. I will post the text of my letters here along with their office addresses. I will encourage you, my readers, to send similar letters.

Those of you who have blogs might consider doing the same thing.

Lay members of ELCA congregations might want to send a letter of support to your pastor.

A little encouragement goes a long way. Let's get some ELCA love started!





I found Vincent Van Gogh's painting of the Good Samaritan here. I used it for this post, well, just because.

Katie Bar The Door! Pt. 2

THE SEQUEL

In the April issue of the online Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE), Church historian Dr. Jon Pahl wrote a scathing critique of LutheranCORE's theological underpinnings. The article caused quite a stir, not least because of Dr. Pahl's no-holds-barred rhetorical tone. The article was accompanied by a brief, dismissive reply from ethicist Dr. Robert Benne.

I am pleased to note that in the June issue of JLE, Rev. Cathy A. Ammlung, "an ordained woman who is a member of Lutheran CORE" offers a more thoughtful response to Dr. Pahl's article. I appreciate that Rev. Ammlung engages some of the very real issues that Dr. Pahl raised. A brief quote:

Dr. Pahl draws the entirely unwarranted conclusion that this represents a Docetic understanding of the Church. This is uncharitable and is a serious misunderstanding of Word Alone and Lutheran CORE. The scandal and pain of schisms, controversies and divisions in the Body of Christ ought not to blind us to the fact that faithful Christians in many denominations understand themselves to be congregationally-based outposts of that Body.

Dr. Pahl's response to both Dr. Benne and Pastor Ammlung can be found here. Though he adopts a less abrasive tone, he sticks by his critical guns. A quote from Dr. Pahl:

Ammlung does address the question of Docetism in CORE, which I appreciated. She feels that CORE members are committed to the church as "the Body of Christ." I hope that's true. But what is the living corpus to which CORE members are committed — is it the congregation, Word Alone, LCMC, NALC, CORE? As I tried to suggest by talking about how "Protestants multiply by dividing" in America, the typical "body" of the church in the American civil religion has no flesh, but is a fantasy of purity that invariably fails — what Luther called a church in "cloud cuckoo land." As is common with Docetics, one senses suspicion of the body of the ELCA and its duly called and elected leaders on the part of some in CORE — a need to control the body, discipline it, punish it, even. And I must confess that I have experienced more than a little punishment from individual CORE members over the past few weeks. I've repeatedly been called a "liar," "ignorant," "narcissistic," "disgusting," — the list goes on an on — usually without any substantive engagement with the theological critiques I offered, or the evidence I gave.

Dr. Pahl's original article caused quite a stir around the internet, including here in my own little corner of the blogosphere. Editor, Rev. Kaari Reierson makes note of the response JLE received and defends the decision to publish Pahl's article.

Many e-mails expressed disappointment that we published an article that was so out-spoken in its criticism. Several writers suggested that publication of the article proved "there's no place for disagreement in the ELCA."

We at JLE beg to differ, and believe JLE's record as a whole supports this claim. JLE regularly publishes articles critical of public documents of the ELCA; moreover, we have often received affirmation for providing a balance of authorship and perspective on controversial issues with writing that expresses sharp disagreement.

There's plenty of good reading and food-for-thought in the links provided above.

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.