Document Actions
An Open Letter to the Editor of The Lutheran
by
Carl E. Braaten
—
October 28, 2010
I am writing in response to your editorial in the October 2010 issue of The Lutheran, the magazine of the ELCA. In that editorial you write about the formation of a new Lutheran church body, the North American Lutheran Church. You make a number of statements that are either petty or untrue, creating a false impression...
An Open Letter to Mr. Daniel J. Lehmann
Editor, The Lutheran, Magazine of the ELCA
8765 W. Higgins Rd.
Chicago, IL 60631
Dear Sir:
I am writing in response to your editorial in the October 2010 issue of The Lutheran, the magazine of the ELCA. In that editorial you write about the formation of a new Lutheran church body, the North American Lutheran Church. You make a number of statements that are either petty or untrue, creating a false impression.
1) You observe that “the NALC becomes, in the eyes of this magazine, one more Lutheran denomination” and you assert that “The Lutheran won’t give it any special coverage just because of its heritage.” Why not? The Lutheran should serve the people of the ELCA and not only the bureaucracy at Higgins Road. The NALC is composed entirely of congregations and pastors who left behind many close friends and relatives in the ELCA. The NALC is therefore not just another Lutheran church body, no matter what you say. It will always have a special relationship to the ELCA as “a chip off the old block.” Don’t you think the people of the ELCA deserve to be kept informed about what their friends and relatives are experiencing in the NALC? Your response is pitifully petty, a mere defensive reaction born of resentment.
2) You observe that “the magazine turned down an advertisement sought by organizers of the NALC gathering. It promoted a theological symposium that served as a run-up to the constituting convention.” These statements are half-truths. As a journalist you should pay attention to the pesky little things called “facts.” I was the initiator and coordinator of the theological conference, “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism.” I know what happened, down to every detail. The fact is that Lutheranism in North American has been and is theologically in disarray, in a state of confusion. My idea was to ask CORE to sponsor a free theological conference for all Lutherans, to discuss the identity and future of Lutheranism with integrity in an ecumenical age. When this conference was planned and announced, there was not a hint about the formation of a new church body. The theological conference was announced at the CORE assembly in September, 2009, Fishers, Indiana, at which time there was no proposal for a new church body on the table. Our theological conference was organized as a function of CORE, pure and simple. What possible objection could you as a journalist or editor have to that, unless you had already taken the side of the bureaucrats in the church struggle that led to the 2009 ELCA assembly in Minneapolis? The fact that the organization of the NALC took place chronologically soon after the theological conference was an after-thought. The advertisement that you turned down was sought by the officers of CORE and not by the organizers of the NALC, as you suggest. The ad was for a conference sponsored by CORE. Not a single word suggested anything about creating a new church body. When we planned the conference, selected the speakers, and produced the brochure, we knew nothing about the NALC, nor was it on anyone’s radar screen.
3) You observe that “many if not all of those involved were still on the ELCA roster, but their actions were schismatic.” Now, as a self-professed schismatic yourself, you should know from experience that neither the conference itself nor any of the speakers were guilty of actions that were schismatic. Who are you to judge that their actions were schismatic? All of the speakers are ordained ministers of the ELCA and have served for decades as professors of theology at its colleges or seminaries, in some cases more than 50 years. Neither the theme nor the aim of the conference was to call for or to promote the creation of a new church body. We are all church theologians and not church politicians. We covered the loci of Lutheran dogmatics -- the authority and interpretation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, the centrality of Christ, the nature and purpose of the Church, Christian ethics, and so forth. The Lutheran theology embedded in these lectures stands on its own feet, and does not ride piggy-back on the church-political actions to start a new church. You should know that theologians who promise to serve the whole church of Jesus Christ are not beholden to the officials of any Protestant denomination. Over the years all of us speak across the ecumenical spectrum, at Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, and Evangelical institutions. Is there something un-Lutheran or un-churchly about that? Now that the NALC is organized, as theologians we are free to speak at its events, just as we are free to speak at any non-ELCA Lutheran church bodies. That may be too difficult to grasp by those who think and act as though church theologians should be the functionaries of church bureaucrats who manipulate the levers of power. If Martin Luther were here, he might say with Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
4) You ask “why would the magazine assist with highlighting an event aimed at distracting, if not undermining, the ELCA?” What do you know about the aim of the theological conference? The brochure states the aim this way: “This theological conference will reaffirm the original aim of Lutheranism to be a reforming movement within the whole church that is both evangelical in preaching and orthodox in doctrine. Each of the presenters will focus on a particular article of faith at risk in Lutheranism today and spell out what we confess on the basis of Holy Scripture, the ancient Creeds, and the Lutheran Confessions. We invite all Lutherans in North America to come together to reclaim the great tradition that witnesses faithfully to Jesus Christ, builds his Church on earth, and proclaims the Gospel of salvation to the nations.” Those are scary words, but only to heterodox revisionists moved by a different spirit and loyal to different principles and standards.
More than eight hundred persons attended the theological conference. You were invited too. Editors from non-Lutheran magazines chose to attend, for example, Christianity Today, Touchstone, inter alia. You chose not to attend, even though it was a major theological event within the orbit of the ELCA. There is a reason for this, and we know what it is. Lutheranism began in history as a movement of critical theology, biblical and dogmatic. The lackeys of the church bureaucracy at that time were opposed to Luther and his reforming and renewing efforts. They could not tolerate criticism. All the theologians who spoke at the theological conference in Columbus, 2010, are responding to the theological crisis in American Lutheranism. They have been critics of various aspects of the ELCA from its earliest beginnings, for example, the quota system, radical theological feminism, antinomianism, etc. The two “Call to Faithfulness Conferences” at St. Olaf College in 1990 and 1992 put the spotlight on a number of critical theological issues. Those who have ears to hear heard, and the rest plugged their ears.
Is there something un-Lutheran about raising voices in protest and criticism of false teachings and practices going on in the church? That’s what theologians do. Lutheran theologians have been doing that from the get-go. Understandably, then and now the church politicians don’t like to hear it. What is the mission of The Lutheran? Is the ELCA beyond criticism, so that critical theological voices should be ignored, muted, and regarded as schismatic? That is what the bureaucrats charged against Luther when they tried to muzzle him. Does The Lutheran have a greater obligation to heed the wishes of the bureaucrats of the ELCA than to hear the voices of its theologians? Do the bureaucrats who have served the ELCA for a few years have a greater right to address the ELCA than its theologians who have served its various educational institutions for many years?
A schism has occurred now. You seem to exhibit no understanding of what caused it. It’s not the case that a few pastors and congregations woke up one morning and said, “Hey, let’s start a new church? Wouldn’t that be fun?” Every historical event has a cause. We know what caused the schism. There would have been no schism except for the ELCA assembly decisions in Minneapolis, August, 2009. The game is now hard-ball and you have joined in, using the kind of tactics applied against you in that other schism to which you refer.
You end your editorial with a quotation from Luther: “The most dangerous sin of all is the presumption of righteousness.” Your editorial reeks with the kind of self-righteousness Luther had in mind.
My question to you is: As a journalist, why can’t you be fair to all parties involved in the debates and discussions going on within the ELCA? Why do you need to be a partisan beholden to its bureaucracy? If that is the mission of The Lutheran, maybe that explains why it has fewer and fewer subscribers and readers, as you yourself have acknowledged.
I am sending this as an “Open Letter,” because I do not expect to see it in The Lutheran magazine. Nor do I want it edited so as to make it say things I did not write. I have had that experience before.
Sincerely,
Carl E. Braaten
bureaucrats are people too
Posted by
Peter
at
October 28, 2010 19:42
For all that the bureaucrats and "church politicians" come off as the villians of your letter, they're real live people, trying to live out their vocation as best they can. Certainly they're not perfect, and they can and do hurt us as a result of their failings. And yet the Gospels witness that Jesus spent time with tax collectors, who arguably had a worse job and did worse things on that job than most, if not all, of the bureaucrats painted in your letter.
Being voiceless is certainly one of the many ways in which we're dehumanized, and I can well imagine that it's incredibly disappointing when a huge amount of effort goes into organizing a conference like that and it doesn't get any coverage. That said, I think there's a fundamental disagreement about what schism is, and the scope of the disagreement. The scope of disagreement is a lot broader than just the church hierarchy. Given all of the memorials, resolutions, church statements, numbers leaving, etc, the vast majority of the parishoners do not see the CWA actions as schismatic. Even if that is viewed as the breaking point, schism doesn't happen until one party is completely ejected, which hasn't happened here, or one party declares itself separate. The Eastern and Western Roman church stayed together for 600 years after the Council of Chalcedon, and it was pretty clear even then that East was East and West was West. Yet it only took 1 year here.
I think this is tightly tied into our differing views of schism. It seems you do not view the formation of NALC as schismatic in any serious way, and more of a confirmation of a schism you already perceive. That's not a universally shared view. Perhaps marriage best illustrates why the formation of NALC is perceived as the uncrossable line in the sand for the ELCA. After CWA, there were certainly relationship problems within the ELCA. Choosing to form NALC is like divorce; it's a statement that those problems cannot be overcome and separation is the only solution. While the divorced folks here can better speak to the pain inherent in divorce, in my limited experience clean breaks help both parties move on with their lives. NALC needs to leave the ELCA behind to promote its own mission, and the ELCA has to let those joining NALC leave. Those with friends/family in the other denomination can certainly keep in touch, and that communication will probably better serve both denominations than either group officially gossiping about the other.
All that said, it would have been interesting had The Lutheran chosen to cover the pre-convocation conference. Given that while it was organized prior to the formation of NALC, I suspect the decision to abstain from covering the conference was not made until it was clear that there would be a new church body formed. Like it or not, that casts a shadow on the theological conference immediately preceding it. The theology in the conference may stand on its own, but without any contrary views or other ideas about what is "Lutheran" or "orthodox" at your conference, it becomes very hard to see the two as significantly separate. Given Pr Hinlicky's witness to the conference, there wasn't a lot of variety in the theology. Maybe different dimensions, but most people there seemed to speak to relatively similar interpretations of Lutheranism. How many dissenting viewpoints were at your conference? Did you invite anyone from, say, herchurch (to pick an extreme example), to explain in their own words to everyone how their theology fits or doesn't fit into Lutheran theology.
There should certainly be discussion and debate over theology, and we should all try to let everyone have their voices heard. What are we doing (or can we do?) to foster discussion and debate rather than angry fights and shouting matches? Encouraging The Lutheran to pay more attention to theological conventions seems one start, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Being voiceless is certainly one of the many ways in which we're dehumanized, and I can well imagine that it's incredibly disappointing when a huge amount of effort goes into organizing a conference like that and it doesn't get any coverage. That said, I think there's a fundamental disagreement about what schism is, and the scope of the disagreement. The scope of disagreement is a lot broader than just the church hierarchy. Given all of the memorials, resolutions, church statements, numbers leaving, etc, the vast majority of the parishoners do not see the CWA actions as schismatic. Even if that is viewed as the breaking point, schism doesn't happen until one party is completely ejected, which hasn't happened here, or one party declares itself separate. The Eastern and Western Roman church stayed together for 600 years after the Council of Chalcedon, and it was pretty clear even then that East was East and West was West. Yet it only took 1 year here.
I think this is tightly tied into our differing views of schism. It seems you do not view the formation of NALC as schismatic in any serious way, and more of a confirmation of a schism you already perceive. That's not a universally shared view. Perhaps marriage best illustrates why the formation of NALC is perceived as the uncrossable line in the sand for the ELCA. After CWA, there were certainly relationship problems within the ELCA. Choosing to form NALC is like divorce; it's a statement that those problems cannot be overcome and separation is the only solution. While the divorced folks here can better speak to the pain inherent in divorce, in my limited experience clean breaks help both parties move on with their lives. NALC needs to leave the ELCA behind to promote its own mission, and the ELCA has to let those joining NALC leave. Those with friends/family in the other denomination can certainly keep in touch, and that communication will probably better serve both denominations than either group officially gossiping about the other.
All that said, it would have been interesting had The Lutheran chosen to cover the pre-convocation conference. Given that while it was organized prior to the formation of NALC, I suspect the decision to abstain from covering the conference was not made until it was clear that there would be a new church body formed. Like it or not, that casts a shadow on the theological conference immediately preceding it. The theology in the conference may stand on its own, but without any contrary views or other ideas about what is "Lutheran" or "orthodox" at your conference, it becomes very hard to see the two as significantly separate. Given Pr Hinlicky's witness to the conference, there wasn't a lot of variety in the theology. Maybe different dimensions, but most people there seemed to speak to relatively similar interpretations of Lutheranism. How many dissenting viewpoints were at your conference? Did you invite anyone from, say, herchurch (to pick an extreme example), to explain in their own words to everyone how their theology fits or doesn't fit into Lutheran theology.
There should certainly be discussion and debate over theology, and we should all try to let everyone have their voices heard. What are we doing (or can we do?) to foster discussion and debate rather than angry fights and shouting matches? Encouraging The Lutheran to pay more attention to theological conventions seems one start, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.
bureaucrats and down sizing
Posted by
roland barth
at
October 28, 2010 23:41
...actually, no they're not. I worked in that office for the past 6 years and can affirm that over half of what used to be the editorial staff has been slowly replaced...by machines. First it was laptop computers for desktop publishing. Then it was MS grammar check. Then google translate. At some point, someone realized we were replaceable. No, not by some sci-fi kind of robots. Just by ordinary technology that most college aged kids take for granted nowadays.
But there are no more people at The Lutheran. Check it out sometime. They keep a front end office open but they'll never allow anyone back there for a tour or anything. I was assistant to the last senior editor to get axed.
My guess? Someone in the ELCA thought blogs weren't good enough for bishops, so what we call The Lutheran is really just some high-up clergy making it up out of whole cloth - every issue!
Regrets to Mr. Braaten, but there really is no editorial board for him to be upset at anymore.
But there are no more people at The Lutheran. Check it out sometime. They keep a front end office open but they'll never allow anyone back there for a tour or anything. I was assistant to the last senior editor to get axed.
My guess? Someone in the ELCA thought blogs weren't good enough for bishops, so what we call The Lutheran is really just some high-up clergy making it up out of whole cloth - every issue!
Regrets to Mr. Braaten, but there really is no editorial board for him to be upset at anymore.
bureaucrats and downsizing
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
October 29, 2010 12:11
So what one really gets when one subscribes to The lUTHERAN is glorified advertizing for "the company store". Hilarious and sad.
Irreconcilable differences
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 02, 2010 15:28
Your comparison of the schism in the ELCA to divorce is faulty. Divorce happens because the two parties involved do not wish to reconcile, whether or not their differences are solvable. But the decisions made by the hierarchy on Higgins Road are not reconcilable, nor will they ever be. There is no middle ground on this position - either you agree that it is sinful behavior, and thus intolerable in a position of trust and regard in the church, or you agree that it is natural and good, and therefore acceptable in the eyes of God.
and yet....
Posted by
Peter
at
November 03, 2010 21:10
...there are a number of counterexamples demonstrating that there is plenty of middle ground. Tony Campolo is one such example. Both he and his wife disagree on this issue, and yet their marriage remains intact. There are plenty of others who are not happy with the decisions that have been made, but are not leaving.
To talk theologically about it, some see this issue as adiaphoron. You and I may not, but I suspect that most in the ELCA do see it this way. That we don't agree on customs and practices is perfectly fine according to the Confessors. AC7 affirms that it is enough to agree on the Gospel and the Sacraments.
To talk theologically about it, some see this issue as adiaphoron. You and I may not, but I suspect that most in the ELCA do see it this way. That we don't agree on customs and practices is perfectly fine according to the Confessors. AC7 affirms that it is enough to agree on the Gospel and the Sacraments.
adiaphora?
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 11, 2010 06:55
Adiaphora are morally acceptable or unacceptable by God based upon the motive and end of the doer. So you are apparently walking the same path as those in the hierarchy of the ELCA, i.e. it's good for me, so it's good?
If this is your stance, this is a classic example of antinomianism. Or, perhaps, a throwback to the feel-good era of the 60's and 70's.
Peter, it's like abortion. There are no maybes, hence no middle ground. What you are talking about is agreeing to disagree, not finding a middle. Your rationalizations are showing.
If this is your stance, this is a classic example of antinomianism. Or, perhaps, a throwback to the feel-good era of the 60's and 70's.
Peter, it's like abortion. There are no maybes, hence no middle ground. What you are talking about is agreeing to disagree, not finding a middle. Your rationalizations are showing.
and abortion
Posted by
Peter
at
November 12, 2010 22:24
Actually, with abortion there is plenty of middle ground. There's a gamut from 'completely wrong for everyone no matter what circumstance to 'ok if the mother's life is in danger' to 'ok in the case of rape' to 'ok within a certain time frame' to 'ok with lots of prayer' to 'ok if you feel like it'. Again, while there are quite vocal minorities on the 'abortion is of the devil' and the 'abortion is my God-given right to exercise as often as I feel' side of things, it's not a big issue for many of the people in the middle.
That there are people for whom there is plenty of middle ground on the sexuality issue is not a stance, so much as a description. And AC7 backs the ones who say that human traditions (including both how marriage is done and how clergy are regularly called) do not matter so long as the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments rightly administered.
My stance is more radical than that or the tepid Sexuality Statement. My stance is that prohibiting the ordination of openly gay clergy interferes with the proclamation of the Gospel in N America and Europe. Furthermore, I see sexuality, homo, hetero, bi, etc as God's good gift to us. As sinners, we all misuse and abuse all of our gifts, those of sexuality included. Thankfully, God forgives those sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, alone and only. I further see requiring that homosexuality be understood as a sin for church membership or fellowship as contrary to the Gospel and the witness of the Augsburg Confessions.
That there are people for whom there is plenty of middle ground on the sexuality issue is not a stance, so much as a description. And AC7 backs the ones who say that human traditions (including both how marriage is done and how clergy are regularly called) do not matter so long as the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments rightly administered.
My stance is more radical than that or the tepid Sexuality Statement. My stance is that prohibiting the ordination of openly gay clergy interferes with the proclamation of the Gospel in N America and Europe. Furthermore, I see sexuality, homo, hetero, bi, etc as God's good gift to us. As sinners, we all misuse and abuse all of our gifts, those of sexuality included. Thankfully, God forgives those sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, alone and only. I further see requiring that homosexuality be understood as a sin for church membership or fellowship as contrary to the Gospel and the witness of the Augsburg Confessions.
Touche!
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 17, 2010 06:47
You have proven my point exactly. We will never find a common ground on this issue, that much is clear. You have defined your stance, and I mine. You and I have a schism here, much like the one created by the hierarchy of the ELCA. The results speak for themselves.
common ground
Posted by
Peter
at
November 17, 2010 21:49
That I don't identify with the middle ground doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My stance is not that of the ELCA leadership. There's also a difference between not wanting to find middle ground and there not being any. For common ground, we need to go to the Gospel.
Common ground?
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 26, 2010 11:15
OK, Peter, here's a definition for you. Middle ground would be the apparent center between the two stances of whether or not homosexuality is sin, or not. Common ground is the point of that area where you and I would agree.
First, point out that middle ground for me. I'm having a difficult time seeing it, actually. Once I am able to grasp your definition of a middle ground in this situation, then I can begin to determine whether or not we will find a common ground in it.
I don't throw stones at sinners. Homosexuality is (to me, at least) a sin, no better or worse than the multitude of sins I commit. The ELCA is asking us to not only condone the sin, but in effect to actually celebrate it by allowing our ordained pastors to openly engage in it, and to allow them to administer the rite of marriage to those who are so taken. Draw that line in the sand any way you wish to....just don't be surprised when it gets re-drawn again, and again, and again...........
First, point out that middle ground for me. I'm having a difficult time seeing it, actually. Once I am able to grasp your definition of a middle ground in this situation, then I can begin to determine whether or not we will find a common ground in it.
I don't throw stones at sinners. Homosexuality is (to me, at least) a sin, no better or worse than the multitude of sins I commit. The ELCA is asking us to not only condone the sin, but in effect to actually celebrate it by allowing our ordained pastors to openly engage in it, and to allow them to administer the rite of marriage to those who are so taken. Draw that line in the sand any way you wish to....just don't be surprised when it gets re-drawn again, and again, and again...........
Common ground - redux
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 26, 2010 11:17
BTW, Peter, there's common ground to be found in the Scriptures, as well.
middle ground
Posted by
Peter
at
November 26, 2010 21:30
Scott,
The common ground from which we must start is the Gospel. See how far down you agree with me. The Gospel: on account of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection alone and only, God promises to forgive sinners. While all of that is important, the two words that Luther emphasized were "alone" and "only": that promise of forgiveness is good ONLY through Christ's death and resurrection and with no additions, like works (ALONE). This promise is received through faith, which is trust that the Gospel promise is specifically FOR ME. In keeping with that "alone", faith is a gift from God, created in the believer through Jesus Christ. Christ's power goes even further in that it doesn't just create faith out of nothing, but creates the entire believer anew out of nothing. We live in tension between this new creation that is in Christ and the old, sinful creation until the day God finally executes judgment against that sinful creation, which we know as death. God's words of Law are directed against the old creation, while His final Word on the problem of human sin is directed to (and creates) the new creation. As explained in Article IV of the Augsburg Confession (AC) in order to be Christian, any idea or concept must (1) rely on/require Christ's death and resurrection and (2) spread the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted. Note that Law has no role there, though it certainly orders society and drive us sinners to Christ.
The church is the collection of those who trust Christ for their salvation, and not because those Christ-trusters "have something to do with one another" as Luther phrases it. Grossly, it means that both Steelers and Browns fans, Packers and Vikings fans, Republicans and Democrats can all be church, even though they have mutually exclusive ideas about various worldly things. This is articulated in AC7. So long as we agree on the Gospel and the Sacraments, we're all in it together.
Now to homosexuality. The ELCA's statement is essentially that of AC7, though they manage to phrase it without actually referring to the Augsburg Confession. It acknowledges that there are faithful Christians on both sides of this debate. If there are faithful Christians on both sides of the debate, each can be trusted to proclaim the Gospel without conflict from the other side. Hence the ELCA's middle ground statement: to those who believe homosexuality is no sin, there will be no condemnation. To those who wish to continue living as though homosexuality were a sin, there will be no condemnation. It's not actually asking you to condone anything you regard as sin, and specifically protects congregations that wish to continue considering this sin. What is doing is making space for those who believe that homosexuality is not a sin to follow that belief. Since both sides are seen as working to proclaim the same Gospel and put their trust in the same Christ, this works. One other consideration is that if agreement on what is/isn't sin is necessary for the church, then we LACK continuity with the historical church.* The ELCA could have backed this up with further examples from history, notably circumcision, abstention from blood and usury.
*deviations from the historical church include: polygamy (See 1 Tim 3:2), most of pre-1500 Catholic canon, slavery, womens' ordination and other rights among others.
The common ground from which we must start is the Gospel. See how far down you agree with me. The Gospel: on account of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection alone and only, God promises to forgive sinners. While all of that is important, the two words that Luther emphasized were "alone" and "only": that promise of forgiveness is good ONLY through Christ's death and resurrection and with no additions, like works (ALONE). This promise is received through faith, which is trust that the Gospel promise is specifically FOR ME. In keeping with that "alone", faith is a gift from God, created in the believer through Jesus Christ. Christ's power goes even further in that it doesn't just create faith out of nothing, but creates the entire believer anew out of nothing. We live in tension between this new creation that is in Christ and the old, sinful creation until the day God finally executes judgment against that sinful creation, which we know as death. God's words of Law are directed against the old creation, while His final Word on the problem of human sin is directed to (and creates) the new creation. As explained in Article IV of the Augsburg Confession (AC) in order to be Christian, any idea or concept must (1) rely on/require Christ's death and resurrection and (2) spread the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted. Note that Law has no role there, though it certainly orders society and drive us sinners to Christ.
The church is the collection of those who trust Christ for their salvation, and not because those Christ-trusters "have something to do with one another" as Luther phrases it. Grossly, it means that both Steelers and Browns fans, Packers and Vikings fans, Republicans and Democrats can all be church, even though they have mutually exclusive ideas about various worldly things. This is articulated in AC7. So long as we agree on the Gospel and the Sacraments, we're all in it together.
Now to homosexuality. The ELCA's statement is essentially that of AC7, though they manage to phrase it without actually referring to the Augsburg Confession. It acknowledges that there are faithful Christians on both sides of this debate. If there are faithful Christians on both sides of the debate, each can be trusted to proclaim the Gospel without conflict from the other side. Hence the ELCA's middle ground statement: to those who believe homosexuality is no sin, there will be no condemnation. To those who wish to continue living as though homosexuality were a sin, there will be no condemnation. It's not actually asking you to condone anything you regard as sin, and specifically protects congregations that wish to continue considering this sin. What is doing is making space for those who believe that homosexuality is not a sin to follow that belief. Since both sides are seen as working to proclaim the same Gospel and put their trust in the same Christ, this works. One other consideration is that if agreement on what is/isn't sin is necessary for the church, then we LACK continuity with the historical church.* The ELCA could have backed this up with further examples from history, notably circumcision, abstention from blood and usury.
*deviations from the historical church include: polygamy (See 1 Tim 3:2), most of pre-1500 Catholic canon, slavery, womens' ordination and other rights among others.
Close, but......
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 29, 2010 16:12
Well, Peter, you had for two paragraphs. Not one word from your definition of Christianity and the church was, at least for me, out of place. These things are directed for us through Scripture and the Gospel.
But in paragraph three you ran right off the tracks. You found the middle ground that the ELCA found....it's just that I'm not there. Not at all.
You see, you offered an explanation (or description, more accurately), and then tempered it with an opinion. Trying to rationalize those things together simply won't wash, at least for me....and, apparently, for many, many other Lutherans as well. We can post and discuss and argue and theologize and orate all we want, but the fact remains that this issue is irreconcilable.
Vaya con Dios, Peter.
But in paragraph three you ran right off the tracks. You found the middle ground that the ELCA found....it's just that I'm not there. Not at all.
You see, you offered an explanation (or description, more accurately), and then tempered it with an opinion. Trying to rationalize those things together simply won't wash, at least for me....and, apparently, for many, many other Lutherans as well. We can post and discuss and argue and theologize and orate all we want, but the fact remains that this issue is irreconcilable.
Vaya con Dios, Peter.
I don't follow
Posted by
Peter
at
November 29, 2010 18:17
Scott,
I have two questions for you. First, if we're in agreement on the first two paragraphs, how do you build from there to 'homosexuality is mutually exclusive with ordination'? Second, what part of the third paragraph "won't wash" for you? Certainly the conclusion is one with which you disagree, but where do you see the logic falling apart?
I have two questions for you. First, if we're in agreement on the first two paragraphs, how do you build from there to 'homosexuality is mutually exclusive with ordination'? Second, what part of the third paragraph "won't wash" for you? Certainly the conclusion is one with which you disagree, but where do you see the logic falling apart?
We just don't follow each other!
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
November 30, 2010 16:59
Peter, it won't wash with me because you and I are separated by our interpretation of the law. Yes, I believe Christ died for me, though I have done nothing to deserve it I have received salvation. My response to that wonderful, awesome, precious gift is my faith, my worship, my proclamation of that Good News. I also believe that we are all sinful - all the time - and hence constantly in need of God's forgiveness.
What I don't believe is that homosexuality is a beautiful gift from God, and OK to publicly proclaim and celebrate. That's just the way I am. Do I have friends and family who are gay? Sure I do. Do I persecute them? Certainly not. I also know people with mental aberrations, criminal pasts, sins so ugly they cannot be shared. I don't persecute them, either. But neither am I telling them - and the world - that their sin is OK, that it's just "how they are". Let me put it another way. Let's say we have a man who enjoys incest with his daughter. They love each other.....they are in a beautiful relationship. Is this normal, or OK? Do we "celebrate" this? Or what about the guy who "loves" his sheep, and has sex with them, and talks to them, and lives for their companionship? Peter, this line will be re-drawn over and over again, to man's personal whim, until there are no lines. To me, it's one of those fuzzy demarcations that are serving to erode our Christian codes of conduct on a daily basis. It's just part of an on-going movement to antinommianism.
I'm no seminary student, not an ordained pastor, not a scholar in any sense. Your acumen dwarfs mine. But we disagree on this issue on a very fundamental level, just as Lutherans around the world are at this very moment. You will never see it my way....why would you expect me to see it yours? Are you "right", and I'm "wrong"?
What I don't believe is that homosexuality is a beautiful gift from God, and OK to publicly proclaim and celebrate. That's just the way I am. Do I have friends and family who are gay? Sure I do. Do I persecute them? Certainly not. I also know people with mental aberrations, criminal pasts, sins so ugly they cannot be shared. I don't persecute them, either. But neither am I telling them - and the world - that their sin is OK, that it's just "how they are". Let me put it another way. Let's say we have a man who enjoys incest with his daughter. They love each other.....they are in a beautiful relationship. Is this normal, or OK? Do we "celebrate" this? Or what about the guy who "loves" his sheep, and has sex with them, and talks to them, and lives for their companionship? Peter, this line will be re-drawn over and over again, to man's personal whim, until there are no lines. To me, it's one of those fuzzy demarcations that are serving to erode our Christian codes of conduct on a daily basis. It's just part of an on-going movement to antinommianism.
I'm no seminary student, not an ordained pastor, not a scholar in any sense. Your acumen dwarfs mine. But we disagree on this issue on a very fundamental level, just as Lutherans around the world are at this very moment. You will never see it my way....why would you expect me to see it yours? Are you "right", and I'm "wrong"?
do we have to?
Posted by
Peter
at
November 30, 2010 20:54
Scott,
This is exactly what Luther means when we says we are formed as the Body of Christ because of Christ and not because we "have something to do with each other". Disagreements over the interpretation of the law are okay; it does not undermine or change the Gospel. Even though the Sexuality Statement doesn't state this explicitly, in effect that is what it is saying. It says that there is a diverse interpretation of the law in regards to homosexuality. It then agrees with your view in that it says that it is okay to think homosexuality is sinful. It agrees with mine in that it says that it is okay to think homosexuality is not inherently sinful. It does say that persecution over this either way is not okay, which is also in agreement with what you have said. Neither side is condoning the other, but accepting that the legal disagreement is secondary to the church's mission, which is proclamation of the Gospel. So long as you and I are both doing that, we're in it together, even if we disagree on one or more matters of the law. In order to actually implement this statement, the ELCA needs to permit those congregations that so choose to call people in same-gendered relationships, which means ordaining the same. Congregations that believe it would be wrong to call such a person are allowed to not call a person on those grounds. We're certainly free (so long as we avoid persecuting above) to discuss why we favor our interpretation of the law and believe it better structures society and drives sinners to Christ.
I am not convinced by your examples of incest and bestiality. All of these laws must apply in concrete situations and not just in theory. To my knowledge there are no examples of actual love in incest. I say "actual" here because I want to distinguish between what is claimed and what is. The difference is the fruits of that love. Any psychologist is far better equipped than I to tell you precisely how the incest relationship itself damages the people involved. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, are no more damaging than heterosexual ones. The problem with bestiality as a counterexample is that the love that should be given a human is being given to animals instead and in a way is idolatry.
I think antinomianism is also avoided in that this is not a crusade against marriage, but for marriage. The issue at hand is not same-gendered sex so much as it is same-gendered marriage. This is a group within the church asking for more law-- those laws concerning marriage. While I think talking about a "Christian code of conduct" endangers justification by faith alone and only, recognizing same-gendered marriage does not even threaten that. If anything, it opens a path to including all of those who fear, reject and hide from the church on account of this very issue back into the Christian sphere of influence.
This is exactly what Luther means when we says we are formed as the Body of Christ because of Christ and not because we "have something to do with each other". Disagreements over the interpretation of the law are okay; it does not undermine or change the Gospel. Even though the Sexuality Statement doesn't state this explicitly, in effect that is what it is saying. It says that there is a diverse interpretation of the law in regards to homosexuality. It then agrees with your view in that it says that it is okay to think homosexuality is sinful. It agrees with mine in that it says that it is okay to think homosexuality is not inherently sinful. It does say that persecution over this either way is not okay, which is also in agreement with what you have said. Neither side is condoning the other, but accepting that the legal disagreement is secondary to the church's mission, which is proclamation of the Gospel. So long as you and I are both doing that, we're in it together, even if we disagree on one or more matters of the law. In order to actually implement this statement, the ELCA needs to permit those congregations that so choose to call people in same-gendered relationships, which means ordaining the same. Congregations that believe it would be wrong to call such a person are allowed to not call a person on those grounds. We're certainly free (so long as we avoid persecuting above) to discuss why we favor our interpretation of the law and believe it better structures society and drives sinners to Christ.
I am not convinced by your examples of incest and bestiality. All of these laws must apply in concrete situations and not just in theory. To my knowledge there are no examples of actual love in incest. I say "actual" here because I want to distinguish between what is claimed and what is. The difference is the fruits of that love. Any psychologist is far better equipped than I to tell you precisely how the incest relationship itself damages the people involved. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, are no more damaging than heterosexual ones. The problem with bestiality as a counterexample is that the love that should be given a human is being given to animals instead and in a way is idolatry.
I think antinomianism is also avoided in that this is not a crusade against marriage, but for marriage. The issue at hand is not same-gendered sex so much as it is same-gendered marriage. This is a group within the church asking for more law-- those laws concerning marriage. While I think talking about a "Christian code of conduct" endangers justification by faith alone and only, recognizing same-gendered marriage does not even threaten that. If anything, it opens a path to including all of those who fear, reject and hide from the church on account of this very issue back into the Christian sphere of influence.
I'm just saying what if.....
Posted by
Scott Otto
at
December 01, 2010 16:50
My examples of other aberrant sexual behaviors were intended to illustrate the erosion of our sense of right and wrong. Forty years ago - maybe even less than that - gays didn't "come out", unless forced. Their fear of intolerance and hatred was too strong. Society wasn't ready for something abnormal to be considered normal, and accepted wholeheartedly and unreservedly.
Now? Well, sure. It's all out there. It's pushed into our faces, whether we like it or not. Those for whom this issue is a priority have succeeded in accomplishing it. My point is, what's next? Don't give me the tired argument of "it's not the same thing". God created man and woman so they could be partners with each other, experience love, and continue His Creation. Not everyone operates under those conditions, as sexual preferences cover a vast array of subtypes. Coprophagy, necrophilia, bestiality, sadism, pederasty, there's a whole gamut. None of these are what God intended. But somehow, homosexuality is given a pass because there's love involved. Dr. Kevorkian killed out of love. Was he right? Was that "OK"? You're missing my point about how evil erodes us a little at a time, kind of the way addicts are ensnared in their trap. It won't hurt. It's just this once.
If the Holy Spirit speaks to you, you know right and wrong. You know what is sinful and what isn't. We can only interpret these voices by ourselves....man's interference merely acts as static. I hear God's voice telling me to be on guard, and I try my best to listen. I also try to love my fellow man as He loves me. It's not easy. I respect your opinions on the subject, because you seem to be earnest. I just have to disagree. If God wants to punish me for my intolerance, then I have to live with that. I can only do the best that I can.
Now? Well, sure. It's all out there. It's pushed into our faces, whether we like it or not. Those for whom this issue is a priority have succeeded in accomplishing it. My point is, what's next? Don't give me the tired argument of "it's not the same thing". God created man and woman so they could be partners with each other, experience love, and continue His Creation. Not everyone operates under those conditions, as sexual preferences cover a vast array of subtypes. Coprophagy, necrophilia, bestiality, sadism, pederasty, there's a whole gamut. None of these are what God intended. But somehow, homosexuality is given a pass because there's love involved. Dr. Kevorkian killed out of love. Was he right? Was that "OK"? You're missing my point about how evil erodes us a little at a time, kind of the way addicts are ensnared in their trap. It won't hurt. It's just this once.
If the Holy Spirit speaks to you, you know right and wrong. You know what is sinful and what isn't. We can only interpret these voices by ourselves....man's interference merely acts as static. I hear God's voice telling me to be on guard, and I try my best to listen. I also try to love my fellow man as He loves me. It's not easy. I respect your opinions on the subject, because you seem to be earnest. I just have to disagree. If God wants to punish me for my intolerance, then I have to live with that. I can only do the best that I can.
some other 'what if's
Posted by
Peter
at
December 01, 2010 22:12
I don't think 'erosion' is the best way of thinking about changing societal values. Consider some of the other values that have changed: 50 years ago it was illegal for President Obama's parents to marry. Interracial marriage was seen as the great sexual aberration of the day. Do you see that as wrong? 50 years ago, the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. Did Martin Luther King, Jr's nonviolence destroy our country's values? Neither of us are women, so I don't know if we fully appreciate the progress that has been made in the realm of women's rights. Is fighting sexual assault and rape more erosion?
One of the strongest voices in Scripture warning us to be on guard is always from the moral authorities of the day. It starts with Genesis 3, which lays out knowledge of good and evil as sin. The prophets all announce the failure of the kings and other authorities to be moral. Jesus' primary conflict in the Gospels is with the Pharisees and Sadducees, who are the moral authorities of their day. Paul has similar problems with "superapostles". Even Luther and the Reformers disagreed strenuously with the moral authority of the day. And yet, none of these voices called for antinomianism, but mercy instead of sacrifice. Grace where the law condemns. Life where there is death.
One of the strongest voices in Scripture warning us to be on guard is always from the moral authorities of the day. It starts with Genesis 3, which lays out knowledge of good and evil as sin. The prophets all announce the failure of the kings and other authorities to be moral. Jesus' primary conflict in the Gospels is with the Pharisees and Sadducees, who are the moral authorities of their day. Paul has similar problems with "superapostles". Even Luther and the Reformers disagreed strenuously with the moral authority of the day. And yet, none of these voices called for antinomianism, but mercy instead of sacrifice. Grace where the law condemns. Life where there is death.
The issue isn’t schism—it is truth
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
October 31, 2010 19:38
I am amused (as always) by Peter’s remark that bureaucrats and "church politicians" are “people too”. I am not sure how the perception came about that anyone was saying they weren’t people; but the point is that these are indeed people—with notable power and influence within the ELCA. They are not simply folk “trying to live out their vocation as best they can”. They have an agenda which supersedes the mundane day to day functions of the ELCA. They are tenacious as they are unbending. They are determined to have their “justice” even if it drives the church into the ground. For all the talk about “listening, dialogue and prayerful searching in the Scriptures” prior (years!) before the “one win once” at the CWA, our leaders now display remarkably closed minds. As far as they are concerned, the issue is shut and closed. The slow wheels of repression are grinding.
It is totally natural that the “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” theological conference took the tone that it did. Quite frankly, it was about the crisis in Lutheran theology in the Americas. Generally, those friendly to the direction the ELCA has taken don’t believe any such crisis in Lutheran theology exists. The case being made at the conference was that such a crisis does indeed exist. What is truly tragic is that the pro-CWA crowd prefers to sacrifice thousands of trees bemoaning “schism” rather than answering specific criticisms. Whole herds of bureaucratic Lutherans wax poetic about “speaking truth to power” when they see themselves as the “Nathan” to someone else’s “David”. Apparently it never occurred to our divines that “speaking truth to power” is an axe that swings both ways.
But like many narcissistic neurotics, our pro-CWA brothers and sisters have provided the divisive provocation and now fault others for the reverberations. The issue isn’t schism—it is truth. Pro-CWA Lutherans are not merely wrong. They are trumpeting a lie. They are pressing this lie forward as a matter of ELCA witness and guidance to the public in general and specifically to individual Lutherans seeking counsel from their Pastor. They are doing this in my name. They are false prophets and I and many others cannot stand behind them. Most important of all, the ELCA can no longer be counted on the tell the truth. If they can see their way to do this, what else will they see their way to do in the years to come?
In point of fact, there are a few straws in the wind as to what that “something” might be. That would be the so- called “creative re-visioning” of the naming of the Trinity. In nutshell, such naming would go beyond “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” to more diverse and inclusive abstractions. The mysterious ambiguities of what we know of God will be the pretext—the wedge—to give ourselves permission to gun the motorcycle of speculation. In spite of the fact that Luther and the early Lutheran reformers abhorred speculation, somehow we will be treated a whole variety of sweetness and light flatulence about how such creativity with ecumenical and orthodox doctrine is the very hallmark of “doing” Lutheran theology.
Lucky us. There have already been Lutheran pioneers who have gone into that glorious new world. The fact that they collectively gulp down copious enthusiasms in Gnostic territory seems to be of little moment. Imagine another “study”, the resolution of such will be us stick-in-the-muds being treated to another exercise of “there is not a consensus among Lutherans on this subject—therefore we will do what we wanted to do in the first place”.
I would not be as sanguine as Peter when he states “the vast majority of the parishioners do not see the CWA actions as schismatic”. He is taking advantage of an ambiguity to say so. A number have voted with their feet and have left. Some congregations have left. The divorce of the Oromo Lutheran Churches was a kick in the teeth for the ELCA. But on a more characteristic level, leaving for most parishioners is problematic. The state of many if not most congregations is one in which there is a third of the members who want the congregation to leave the ELCA, a third who want to stay, and the “squishy” middle who don’t know what to make of the situation or don’t know what in the hell is going on. If you could take entire blocks of these various parishioners, shuffle them around, putting like kind with like kind, more congregations could comfortably leave. Those congregations who stay conceivably could be happier.
No such thing could happen, of course. The reality is that for most Lutherans in ELCA pews there is no local NALC congregation they can join right now. The choices stack up this way: 1.) Stay in a holding pattern for now. 2.) Join a local Missouri Synod or Wisconsin congregation. 3.) Abandon Lutheranism altogether and dive into the messy world of Evangelical and/or non-denominational Churches 4.) Cross the Tiber to embrace Roman Catholicism or 5.) Cross the Bosporus to the Orthodox Church.
Contrary to flights of fancy of many in the ELCA, the MS, WS, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Catholic and Orthodox Church are highly unlikely to “evolve” to Liberal enlightenment—ever. Yet, none of these options are without historical theological conflicts with orthodox Lutheranism. But, at the same time, staying in an ELCA congregation will only provide a temporary freedom from strife. Maybe not this year, maybe not the next, but a new Pastor will insist on holding blessings for same-sex unions. Some will be faced with their congregation taking new Pastor with his homosexual partner as a package. If that were not enough, defiling the Trinity is just around the corner—likely to just appear one Sunday unannounced. Then the ELCA leadership’s assurance that “it doesn’t have to mean anything if you don’t want it to” will be hollow. Divisiveness hits home and personal. I guess then we’ll find out what those Lutherans are made of.
Or maybe not. Will The Lutheran tell us? Will the magazine and the ELCA leadership even care? The subject is closed after all. It is not in the nature of bureaucracies to detail the aftermath of decisions they will not acknowledge (even to themselves) were unfaithful. The Pro-CWA measures and their acolytes were not merely misguided and mistaken. They were corrupt. And they have had and will have corrosive consequences on the ELCA in the years to come.
It is totally natural that the “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” theological conference took the tone that it did. Quite frankly, it was about the crisis in Lutheran theology in the Americas. Generally, those friendly to the direction the ELCA has taken don’t believe any such crisis in Lutheran theology exists. The case being made at the conference was that such a crisis does indeed exist. What is truly tragic is that the pro-CWA crowd prefers to sacrifice thousands of trees bemoaning “schism” rather than answering specific criticisms. Whole herds of bureaucratic Lutherans wax poetic about “speaking truth to power” when they see themselves as the “Nathan” to someone else’s “David”. Apparently it never occurred to our divines that “speaking truth to power” is an axe that swings both ways.
But like many narcissistic neurotics, our pro-CWA brothers and sisters have provided the divisive provocation and now fault others for the reverberations. The issue isn’t schism—it is truth. Pro-CWA Lutherans are not merely wrong. They are trumpeting a lie. They are pressing this lie forward as a matter of ELCA witness and guidance to the public in general and specifically to individual Lutherans seeking counsel from their Pastor. They are doing this in my name. They are false prophets and I and many others cannot stand behind them. Most important of all, the ELCA can no longer be counted on the tell the truth. If they can see their way to do this, what else will they see their way to do in the years to come?
In point of fact, there are a few straws in the wind as to what that “something” might be. That would be the so- called “creative re-visioning” of the naming of the Trinity. In nutshell, such naming would go beyond “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” to more diverse and inclusive abstractions. The mysterious ambiguities of what we know of God will be the pretext—the wedge—to give ourselves permission to gun the motorcycle of speculation. In spite of the fact that Luther and the early Lutheran reformers abhorred speculation, somehow we will be treated a whole variety of sweetness and light flatulence about how such creativity with ecumenical and orthodox doctrine is the very hallmark of “doing” Lutheran theology.
Lucky us. There have already been Lutheran pioneers who have gone into that glorious new world. The fact that they collectively gulp down copious enthusiasms in Gnostic territory seems to be of little moment. Imagine another “study”, the resolution of such will be us stick-in-the-muds being treated to another exercise of “there is not a consensus among Lutherans on this subject—therefore we will do what we wanted to do in the first place”.
I would not be as sanguine as Peter when he states “the vast majority of the parishioners do not see the CWA actions as schismatic”. He is taking advantage of an ambiguity to say so. A number have voted with their feet and have left. Some congregations have left. The divorce of the Oromo Lutheran Churches was a kick in the teeth for the ELCA. But on a more characteristic level, leaving for most parishioners is problematic. The state of many if not most congregations is one in which there is a third of the members who want the congregation to leave the ELCA, a third who want to stay, and the “squishy” middle who don’t know what to make of the situation or don’t know what in the hell is going on. If you could take entire blocks of these various parishioners, shuffle them around, putting like kind with like kind, more congregations could comfortably leave. Those congregations who stay conceivably could be happier.
No such thing could happen, of course. The reality is that for most Lutherans in ELCA pews there is no local NALC congregation they can join right now. The choices stack up this way: 1.) Stay in a holding pattern for now. 2.) Join a local Missouri Synod or Wisconsin congregation. 3.) Abandon Lutheranism altogether and dive into the messy world of Evangelical and/or non-denominational Churches 4.) Cross the Tiber to embrace Roman Catholicism or 5.) Cross the Bosporus to the Orthodox Church.
Contrary to flights of fancy of many in the ELCA, the MS, WS, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Catholic and Orthodox Church are highly unlikely to “evolve” to Liberal enlightenment—ever. Yet, none of these options are without historical theological conflicts with orthodox Lutheranism. But, at the same time, staying in an ELCA congregation will only provide a temporary freedom from strife. Maybe not this year, maybe not the next, but a new Pastor will insist on holding blessings for same-sex unions. Some will be faced with their congregation taking new Pastor with his homosexual partner as a package. If that were not enough, defiling the Trinity is just around the corner—likely to just appear one Sunday unannounced. Then the ELCA leadership’s assurance that “it doesn’t have to mean anything if you don’t want it to” will be hollow. Divisiveness hits home and personal. I guess then we’ll find out what those Lutherans are made of.
Or maybe not. Will The Lutheran tell us? Will the magazine and the ELCA leadership even care? The subject is closed after all. It is not in the nature of bureaucracies to detail the aftermath of decisions they will not acknowledge (even to themselves) were unfaithful. The Pro-CWA measures and their acolytes were not merely misguided and mistaken. They were corrupt. And they have had and will have corrosive consequences on the ELCA in the years to come.
Questions and Commandment
Posted by
Gary
at
November 01, 2010 13:51
Dear Mick,
I have some questions I'd like your help with. Firstly, what are these criticisms that have been leveled at the ELCA? I've not yet heard them. You said: "The issue isn’t schism—it is truth. Pro-CWA Lutherans are not merely wrong. They are trumpeting a lie. They are pressing this lie forward as a matter of ELCA witness and guidance to the public in general and specifically to individual Lutherans seeking counsel from their Pastor. They are doing this in my name. They are false prophets and I and many others cannot stand behind them. Most important of all, the ELCA can no longer be counted on the tell the truth. If they can see their way to do this, what else will they see their way to do in the years to come?" And yet, in all this you do not name the lie; you imply. You also fail to specify what you mean by "in my name". Could you clarify?
Second, to something you did actually name: the re-formulation of Trinitarian language. Now, I am in my third year at an ELCA seminary which is generally regarded as quite liberal, and I have heard nothing of it and know that many of my fellow students (to say nothing of my professors) would be very troubled by the notion. I attempted to discover some evidence for what you are describing, but have come across nothing of the kind. Please help me, as I would be very concerned by such news.
Third, I can't help but see a narrative in your post. The ELCA set up the CWA, after years of debate, to just do what they wanted to do. Which was... say congregations and synods can make up their own minds? Please help me see how this is consistent with your view of the ELCA.
Fourth, your contention that many people wish to join the NALC but cannot at the moment, which is conjoined with the idea that someday soon someone will come along and force same-sex unions down the congregational throat. To the first point, this may be true, but why? Since there are ELCA congregations who have no intention of having a homosexual pastor or blessing same-sex unions (and I know this since I'm a member of one), the attraction of the NALC makes no sense unless there are other differences. To the second point, to do such a thing would be directly counter to the sexuality statement and the resolutions of CWA 2009; it is a misconception being perpetuated by persons who don't seem to believe that dissenting opinions on this subject can be held.
Finally, your feedback to Peter was unhelpful. His assertion that these are people was, so far as I can tell, an appeal to the eighth commandment. If we put the best possible construction on everything our neighbors say and do, is what Peter is responding to in alignment with the commandments? Really, I see it as a reminder to love God and neighbor. This is something that I have personally seen a lack of on this issue, and I imagine this is what Peter is referring to. Your concluding paragraph, in concert with the statements that preceded it, sounds quite damning to me. However, the unfortunate thing is that I can only see it as an argument against the character of the ELCA (an - dare I say it - ad hominem) which fails to make a case on evidence. I truly believe you think you're telling the truth, but I wanted you to know that, to those who do not already agree, you lack persuasive power. Any illumination you can provide will be welcome. I hope I have not sounded harsh; I am attempting to be as generous as possible and invite you to tell me if you receive this post as unfair.
In Christ,
Gary
I have some questions I'd like your help with. Firstly, what are these criticisms that have been leveled at the ELCA? I've not yet heard them. You said: "The issue isn’t schism—it is truth. Pro-CWA Lutherans are not merely wrong. They are trumpeting a lie. They are pressing this lie forward as a matter of ELCA witness and guidance to the public in general and specifically to individual Lutherans seeking counsel from their Pastor. They are doing this in my name. They are false prophets and I and many others cannot stand behind them. Most important of all, the ELCA can no longer be counted on the tell the truth. If they can see their way to do this, what else will they see their way to do in the years to come?" And yet, in all this you do not name the lie; you imply. You also fail to specify what you mean by "in my name". Could you clarify?
Second, to something you did actually name: the re-formulation of Trinitarian language. Now, I am in my third year at an ELCA seminary which is generally regarded as quite liberal, and I have heard nothing of it and know that many of my fellow students (to say nothing of my professors) would be very troubled by the notion. I attempted to discover some evidence for what you are describing, but have come across nothing of the kind. Please help me, as I would be very concerned by such news.
Third, I can't help but see a narrative in your post. The ELCA set up the CWA, after years of debate, to just do what they wanted to do. Which was... say congregations and synods can make up their own minds? Please help me see how this is consistent with your view of the ELCA.
Fourth, your contention that many people wish to join the NALC but cannot at the moment, which is conjoined with the idea that someday soon someone will come along and force same-sex unions down the congregational throat. To the first point, this may be true, but why? Since there are ELCA congregations who have no intention of having a homosexual pastor or blessing same-sex unions (and I know this since I'm a member of one), the attraction of the NALC makes no sense unless there are other differences. To the second point, to do such a thing would be directly counter to the sexuality statement and the resolutions of CWA 2009; it is a misconception being perpetuated by persons who don't seem to believe that dissenting opinions on this subject can be held.
Finally, your feedback to Peter was unhelpful. His assertion that these are people was, so far as I can tell, an appeal to the eighth commandment. If we put the best possible construction on everything our neighbors say and do, is what Peter is responding to in alignment with the commandments? Really, I see it as a reminder to love God and neighbor. This is something that I have personally seen a lack of on this issue, and I imagine this is what Peter is referring to. Your concluding paragraph, in concert with the statements that preceded it, sounds quite damning to me. However, the unfortunate thing is that I can only see it as an argument against the character of the ELCA (an - dare I say it - ad hominem) which fails to make a case on evidence. I truly believe you think you're telling the truth, but I wanted you to know that, to those who do not already agree, you lack persuasive power. Any illumination you can provide will be welcome. I hope I have not sounded harsh; I am attempting to be as generous as possible and invite you to tell me if you receive this post as unfair.
In Christ,
Gary
8th commandment misapplication
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 02, 2010 12:02
There is a fallacy going on in approach here. Most of the comments are based on believing and then responding as if the ELCA was an individual person rather than an organization made up of people who at the level of organization can not be redeemed en masse but only suffer the consequences of being an organization under God's judgment, ie. God's law. There is no redemption under God's law ever, only retribution (cf. Rom. 3:20-22ff). To say that respondents here are breaking the 8th commandment is a fallacy in that the 8th commandment for Christians is a person-to-person engagement and not public opinion about an organization. You can't apply the same tenets to apples and oranges. It is to misread the issues at hand and it is to mingle God's left hand methodology with God's right hand methodology.
Having said that it is important to remember that what is going on within American Lutheranism posits procedures based on God's retributive judgments (ie. miscommunication, inability to listen and to relegate the conversation simply as taking place only within God's left hand jurisdiction, ie. the exigency of public opinion-making, political machination, etc.)
So I believe those who criticize the ELCA can do so appropriately within the order in which sinners relate to sinners both individually as well as on the corporate level.
Having said that it is important to remember that what is going on within American Lutheranism posits procedures based on God's retributive judgments (ie. miscommunication, inability to listen and to relegate the conversation simply as taking place only within God's left hand jurisdiction, ie. the exigency of public opinion-making, political machination, etc.)
So I believe those who criticize the ELCA can do so appropriately within the order in which sinners relate to sinners both individually as well as on the corporate level.
The Law and People
Posted by
Gary
at
November 02, 2010 15:21
Dear readselerttoo,
I don't understand your points, so I must ask some questions. Is Carl Braaten's letter not addressed to a single individual, and Peter responding to an individual (Braaten), and Mick Lee an individual responding to Peter, and aren't you an individual responding to me? I'm truly baffled as to where you got the idea that I was saying that the eighth commandment applies to "organizations". Nevertheless, I will agree that I believe that.
An organization is made up of people. To put the best possible construction on every individual is to put the best possible construction on the actions of every group and every community as well. This is because a group or a community is not oranges to the apples of individuals; it is a quantity of individuals that makes these things, a bushel of apples. You speak of God's right and left hand methodologies in a most confusing way - we are talking about Church here, right? And Christians? And not about use of civil authority? Beyond which, if you construe the Church as partly in the civil realm (as I do), the distinction still makes no bones. Not to mention that you seem to be implying that the commandments only apply to individual Christians, and never groups?! I think our Jewish brothers and sisters might disagree on more than one level.
Your second paragraph confuses me. The way I am interpreting it is that you correlate retributive judgment with the left hand. This is not a full understanding of the left hand, with which God creates order and restrains evil. The left hand is not just retributive; in fact, I would argue that retribution is often a human desire which corrupts the intentions and actions of the left hand of God as such occur in community. But this is all an excursus to the main point you seem to have: the order in which sinners relate to sinners individually and corporately. Isn't this the very order the Commandments apply to and create? Help!
Yours in perplexity and Christ,
Gary
I don't understand your points, so I must ask some questions. Is Carl Braaten's letter not addressed to a single individual, and Peter responding to an individual (Braaten), and Mick Lee an individual responding to Peter, and aren't you an individual responding to me? I'm truly baffled as to where you got the idea that I was saying that the eighth commandment applies to "organizations". Nevertheless, I will agree that I believe that.
An organization is made up of people. To put the best possible construction on every individual is to put the best possible construction on the actions of every group and every community as well. This is because a group or a community is not oranges to the apples of individuals; it is a quantity of individuals that makes these things, a bushel of apples. You speak of God's right and left hand methodologies in a most confusing way - we are talking about Church here, right? And Christians? And not about use of civil authority? Beyond which, if you construe the Church as partly in the civil realm (as I do), the distinction still makes no bones. Not to mention that you seem to be implying that the commandments only apply to individual Christians, and never groups?! I think our Jewish brothers and sisters might disagree on more than one level.
Your second paragraph confuses me. The way I am interpreting it is that you correlate retributive judgment with the left hand. This is not a full understanding of the left hand, with which God creates order and restrains evil. The left hand is not just retributive; in fact, I would argue that retribution is often a human desire which corrupts the intentions and actions of the left hand of God as such occur in community. But this is all an excursus to the main point you seem to have: the order in which sinners relate to sinners individually and corporately. Isn't this the very order the Commandments apply to and create? Help!
Yours in perplexity and Christ,
Gary
response at only one point to Gary
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 02, 2010 16:48
Gary writes: "Not to mention that you seem to be implying that the commandments only apply to individual Christians, and never groups?! I think our Jewish brothers and sisters might disagree on more than one level."
The new way (as opposed to the specific Jewish direction) that Christians use the commandments is primarily person-to-person encounter and never is addressed to the organization en masse. Certainly God directed his law as a societal standeard for the Jews. But we aren't Jews and we don't identify ourselves with that community. (This is another way that some in the ELCA have confused God's Law with God's Gospel) see St. Paul Romans 3:19: "...through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
The summary of sinner-to-sinner which culminates in accumulation into organization means that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" but not all are saved, ie. summarized individuals into an organization en masse. Christ's offer of forgiveness through his death is directed to individual hearers of the Gospel and is not addressed to some institutional organization (ie. ELCA). The problem with some in the ELCA is that they derive "church" with organization and that is not what the church is...what is prior is not the organization but where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.
The only thing left for the organizaiton en masse (ELCA) is the retributive nature of God's law in God's left hand (which, yes, does have the quality of keeping RELATIVE security and Relative peace. They are non-lasting with the changes and chances of history in which the organization ELCA is embedded.)
The new way (as opposed to the specific Jewish direction) that Christians use the commandments is primarily person-to-person encounter and never is addressed to the organization en masse. Certainly God directed his law as a societal standeard for the Jews. But we aren't Jews and we don't identify ourselves with that community. (This is another way that some in the ELCA have confused God's Law with God's Gospel) see St. Paul Romans 3:19: "...through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
The summary of sinner-to-sinner which culminates in accumulation into organization means that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" but not all are saved, ie. summarized individuals into an organization en masse. Christ's offer of forgiveness through his death is directed to individual hearers of the Gospel and is not addressed to some institutional organization (ie. ELCA). The problem with some in the ELCA is that they derive "church" with organization and that is not what the church is...what is prior is not the organization but where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.
The only thing left for the organizaiton en masse (ELCA) is the retributive nature of God's law in God's left hand (which, yes, does have the quality of keeping RELATIVE security and Relative peace. They are non-lasting with the changes and chances of history in which the organization ELCA is embedded.)
Law...
Posted by
Gary
at
November 02, 2010 17:50
Dear readselerttoo,
I have to do this in some organized fashion, so I will use points.
1. How is your distinction of Christian and Jew not in direct conflict with Rom. 10.12 and Galatians 3.28 - there is no distinction between the Greek and the Jew?
2. Luther's explanation in the Large Catechism of the Eighth Commandment goes something like this(using the Wengert/Kolb trans.): help neighbors maintain legal rights (421.260); neither accuse falsely nor tolerate false accusation regarding spiritual practice, such as heresy (421.262); sins of the tongue which offend or injure the neighbor (421.263-4); so any judgment and spoken evil of the neighbor is forbidden, except to those authorized in their office to speak the truth of it (422-3.274-5); personal or private things should follow Matthew 18, which can become public for the community if necessary (423.279-281); so we should cloak what is worst about our neighbors in our relationships with them, to promote their good name and to prevent their disgrace (424.285-9). In light of this, how do you say this is not applied as a social rule? How does it not apply to the community? If it does not, would that not mean that a Christian cannot protest against a government? And even if the ELCA is not an individual, does it not have members? Should not we aid to cover the weak members and proclaim the strong and noble, even as Luther says in p. 288?
3. You seem to say that the promise of salvation is extended to individuals and not communities. Yet what is the Church but a community, comprised of communities? Are not the Word and Sacraments received in community? Does the ELCA not have the Word and Sacraments, even as the Roman church did in Luther's day? And did not Luther therefore declare the Roman "organization" was still the Church?
4. You seem to be confusing the Law/Gospel distinction with the distinction between the two hands/kingdoms. The latter is a matter of dividing the first use of the Law, civil order (left hand), from the eschatological action of God (right hand). This means that the sacraments are direct actions of God, while civil authority and organization is a gift through which God works in the world. But as part of the Church (by virtue of Word and Sacraments) the ELCA is an organization of congregations which receive the promises of God, both Law and Gospel (that is, Law(1): civil authority as active to restrain evil and create order, Law(2): the terrifying of consciences which are driven to God, and Gospel: the promise of salvation and eternal life in the presence of God bestowed in Word and Sacraments). So your equation of law to left hand, while understandable, is incorrect as far as I can tell. Unless you can hash it out a little more?
5. Finally, you also seem to equate the Lutheran theological category of Law with the Ten Commandments (or why else would you be applying all this to the Eighth Commandment use?) and this is simply not the case. Help me out here?
In Peace,
Gary
I have to do this in some organized fashion, so I will use points.
1. How is your distinction of Christian and Jew not in direct conflict with Rom. 10.12 and Galatians 3.28 - there is no distinction between the Greek and the Jew?
2. Luther's explanation in the Large Catechism of the Eighth Commandment goes something like this(using the Wengert/Kolb trans.): help neighbors maintain legal rights (421.260); neither accuse falsely nor tolerate false accusation regarding spiritual practice, such as heresy (421.262); sins of the tongue which offend or injure the neighbor (421.263-4); so any judgment and spoken evil of the neighbor is forbidden, except to those authorized in their office to speak the truth of it (422-3.274-5); personal or private things should follow Matthew 18, which can become public for the community if necessary (423.279-281); so we should cloak what is worst about our neighbors in our relationships with them, to promote their good name and to prevent their disgrace (424.285-9). In light of this, how do you say this is not applied as a social rule? How does it not apply to the community? If it does not, would that not mean that a Christian cannot protest against a government? And even if the ELCA is not an individual, does it not have members? Should not we aid to cover the weak members and proclaim the strong and noble, even as Luther says in p. 288?
3. You seem to say that the promise of salvation is extended to individuals and not communities. Yet what is the Church but a community, comprised of communities? Are not the Word and Sacraments received in community? Does the ELCA not have the Word and Sacraments, even as the Roman church did in Luther's day? And did not Luther therefore declare the Roman "organization" was still the Church?
4. You seem to be confusing the Law/Gospel distinction with the distinction between the two hands/kingdoms. The latter is a matter of dividing the first use of the Law, civil order (left hand), from the eschatological action of God (right hand). This means that the sacraments are direct actions of God, while civil authority and organization is a gift through which God works in the world. But as part of the Church (by virtue of Word and Sacraments) the ELCA is an organization of congregations which receive the promises of God, both Law and Gospel (that is, Law(1): civil authority as active to restrain evil and create order, Law(2): the terrifying of consciences which are driven to God, and Gospel: the promise of salvation and eternal life in the presence of God bestowed in Word and Sacraments). So your equation of law to left hand, while understandable, is incorrect as far as I can tell. Unless you can hash it out a little more?
5. Finally, you also seem to equate the Lutheran theological category of Law with the Ten Commandments (or why else would you be applying all this to the Eighth Commandment use?) and this is simply not the case. Help me out here?
In Peace,
Gary
time constraint and response to only one point
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 03, 2010 09:31
You have some good points to which to respond but I can only address one...with the limited time I have. Perhaps a face-to-face conversation would help clarify...even better. But unfortunately this will have to do.
As to distinction between Jew and "Greek" the new covenant is addressed to individuals (here is where the non-distinction of Gal. 3 text is important) in that the message of the Gospel arrives at the individual sinner's ear indistinct from culture and race. As to national/racial/religious communities there are distinctions and necessary ones for relative peace and security among groups. God's law of differences applies here only. But to those who avail themselves as individuals to the Gospel message indistinct and irregardless of class or race or cultural differences, the message that Jesus brings in the forgiveness of sins is for you (singular not plural)
As to the other points see writings at crossings.org or read Werner Elert's Das Christliche Ethos (The Christian Ethos) for additional resource.
As to distinction between Jew and "Greek" the new covenant is addressed to individuals (here is where the non-distinction of Gal. 3 text is important) in that the message of the Gospel arrives at the individual sinner's ear indistinct from culture and race. As to national/racial/religious communities there are distinctions and necessary ones for relative peace and security among groups. God's law of differences applies here only. But to those who avail themselves as individuals to the Gospel message indistinct and irregardless of class or race or cultural differences, the message that Jesus brings in the forgiveness of sins is for you (singular not plural)
As to the other points see writings at crossings.org or read Werner Elert's Das Christliche Ethos (The Christian Ethos) for additional resource.
Law and Gospel
Posted by
Gary
at
November 04, 2010 12:29
Sir, you have not clarified, but that's not surprising. My I see in the above is "Individuals receive the gospel, and therefore only they are under the gospel." But this is a division of Law and Gospel that cannot exist; for Law to occur, there must come Gospel. Otherwise there is only destruction. Law is the blade of the Gospel; the two occur together. You seem to be suggesting something else; whatever it is, it is certainly something that assumes things I do not. You almost seem to be suggesting that deliverance happens apart from race and nation and culture; but these things are fundamental to human identity, and to be redeemed as a whole person must include the redemption of these identities. Regardless, it seems to me that we come from different ideas of Lutheran theology. From where I sit, your idea would deny the critique of any organization by an individual, since if the gospel does not apply the law cannot apply. This is the only way I can think of that your statements that the 8th commandment does not apply make sense. For research into the reformers and how they addressed institutions, governments, etc. I suggest Carter Lindberg, Beyond Charity. You may also consider working with James Estes' Peace, Order and the Glory of God. Both deal with the way the reformers, including Luther and Melanchthon, dealt with public spheres and organizations while struggling with the "two kingdoms".
Be well,
Gary
Be well,
Gary
Law/Gospel vs Two Kingdoms
Posted by
Peter
at
November 04, 2010 20:33
Gary,
I don't have the same perspective as readselerttoo, but I think that I might be able to explain some of what he said. Either that, or it'll just further muddy the waters.
To address point 4, I've always understood Two Kingdoms theology as directly following from the Law/Gospel distinction. I understand the Left hand as including all uses of the Law, specifically including the second use. However, I don't see the Gospel as automatically linked to all instances of the Law-- this is the primary problem non-Christians face. They hear plenty of Law in every aspect of their lives, but not the life-giving words of the Gospel. I do believe that leads to destruction, which is one source of the urgency in proclaiming the Gospel to all nations. My understanding is that institutions fulfill first use of the Law insofar as they are civil orderings of society. Insofar as they drive individuals to Christ, they fulfill the Second Use. That First use also regulates the institutions, one form of which is criticism. Institutions are not people, so they cannot encounter Christ or have faith in Him. Individuals within an institution can, but not the institution itself.
I don't understand what you're saying about the 10 Commandments not being Law. I see them as one summation of God's Law (an even briefer one being "love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself"). Those commandments don't justify us or save us in any way; at best they show us where we come up short. That puts them on the Law side of the equation to me. For them to have any relevance to a Christian, the Gospel must also be proclaimed. I think the distinction with Jews is that the 10 Commandments can stand on their own in Judaism because they focus on the impossible task of fulfilling the Law.
I think one point of disagreement is also the manner of redemption. I think Elert's view was that redemption was a new creation from nothing worked in the sinner by Christ. The old creation is entirely destined to death. The sinner-saint distinction is seen as the tension between the old creation that continues to persist under the curse of the Law, and the new creation that is free in Christ.
Whether or not what I wrote helps, Ed Schroeder summarized Elert's The Christian Ethos at the beginning of this year in two parts:
http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur012110.shtml
http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur012810.shtml
I don't have the same perspective as readselerttoo, but I think that I might be able to explain some of what he said. Either that, or it'll just further muddy the waters.
To address point 4, I've always understood Two Kingdoms theology as directly following from the Law/Gospel distinction. I understand the Left hand as including all uses of the Law, specifically including the second use. However, I don't see the Gospel as automatically linked to all instances of the Law-- this is the primary problem non-Christians face. They hear plenty of Law in every aspect of their lives, but not the life-giving words of the Gospel. I do believe that leads to destruction, which is one source of the urgency in proclaiming the Gospel to all nations. My understanding is that institutions fulfill first use of the Law insofar as they are civil orderings of society. Insofar as they drive individuals to Christ, they fulfill the Second Use. That First use also regulates the institutions, one form of which is criticism. Institutions are not people, so they cannot encounter Christ or have faith in Him. Individuals within an institution can, but not the institution itself.
I don't understand what you're saying about the 10 Commandments not being Law. I see them as one summation of God's Law (an even briefer one being "love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself"). Those commandments don't justify us or save us in any way; at best they show us where we come up short. That puts them on the Law side of the equation to me. For them to have any relevance to a Christian, the Gospel must also be proclaimed. I think the distinction with Jews is that the 10 Commandments can stand on their own in Judaism because they focus on the impossible task of fulfilling the Law.
I think one point of disagreement is also the manner of redemption. I think Elert's view was that redemption was a new creation from nothing worked in the sinner by Christ. The old creation is entirely destined to death. The sinner-saint distinction is seen as the tension between the old creation that continues to persist under the curse of the Law, and the new creation that is free in Christ.
Whether or not what I wrote helps, Ed Schroeder summarized Elert's The Christian Ethos at the beginning of this year in two parts:
http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur012110.shtml
http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur012810.shtml
good summary
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 05, 2010 13:19
Peter writes: "I think Elert's view was that redemption was a new creation from nothing worked in the sinner by Christ. The old creation is entirely destined to death. The sinner-saint distinction is seen as the tension between the old creation that continues to persist under the curse of the Law, and the new creation that is free in Christ."
This is a classic summary of Elert's view of redemption and will help in the biblical (specifically, regarding the New Covenant in Christ)
understanding of Romans 3, a text that invites consistent serious reflection among Christians today.
Thanks for this.
Also regarding another writer's reflection on Law/Gospel. It is imperative that the God's Law be driven beyond any mingling with the Gospel. For to be able to disassociate both yet keep both in perspective is to finally give much magnification to Christ's benefits for the sinner ala Apology 4. P. Melanchthon, although in some places watered down the article on justification later in life, at least in the AC and Apology nailed its miraculous effect from Scripture and was able to draw it out in his own words.
Official RC teaching as well as Calvinism still do not "get it".
Good stuff all around.
This is a classic summary of Elert's view of redemption and will help in the biblical (specifically, regarding the New Covenant in Christ)
understanding of Romans 3, a text that invites consistent serious reflection among Christians today.
Thanks for this.
Also regarding another writer's reflection on Law/Gospel. It is imperative that the God's Law be driven beyond any mingling with the Gospel. For to be able to disassociate both yet keep both in perspective is to finally give much magnification to Christ's benefits for the sinner ala Apology 4. P. Melanchthon, although in some places watered down the article on justification later in life, at least in the AC and Apology nailed its miraculous effect from Scripture and was able to draw it out in his own words.
Official RC teaching as well as Calvinism still do not "get it".
Good stuff all around.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 05, 2010 13:35
Gary writes: "...your idea would deny the critique of any organization by an individual, since if the gospel does not apply the law cannot apply."
This is contrary to what I said. What I am trying to clarify is that it is imperative that critique of organizations be made because under God's law both the critic and the institution are under retributive measures. The Gospel has no place within this arena. As a critic within a specific "stand",(ie. public citizen) I am exercising as a sinner among other sinners the fruits of God's law which also include the curse living the life under the law. There is absolutely no redemption here in that as far as the conversation remains critic/criticized within the realm of God's law, the curse will work itself out toward destruction for both the human critic and the institution.
The Gospel remains only addressed to the individual hearer who through repentance is put to death within Jesus' death and raised through Jesus' resurrection. The receipt of the Good News finally is intact within taking advantage of one's baptismal renewal (recogizing the benefits of one's baptism into Christ ala Romans 6) as well as through faith (ie. receipt of what Christ offers, ie. the pro me).
The operation of law/gospel distinctions only occur within the one who is "struck by the Gospel's message" through faith.
Modern American perspectives (including Lindberg) on Luther end up applying notions of law/gospel specifically as phenomenological observations and never arrive at the level of ethos.
This is contrary to what I said. What I am trying to clarify is that it is imperative that critique of organizations be made because under God's law both the critic and the institution are under retributive measures. The Gospel has no place within this arena. As a critic within a specific "stand",(ie. public citizen) I am exercising as a sinner among other sinners the fruits of God's law which also include the curse living the life under the law. There is absolutely no redemption here in that as far as the conversation remains critic/criticized within the realm of God's law, the curse will work itself out toward destruction for both the human critic and the institution.
The Gospel remains only addressed to the individual hearer who through repentance is put to death within Jesus' death and raised through Jesus' resurrection. The receipt of the Good News finally is intact within taking advantage of one's baptismal renewal (recogizing the benefits of one's baptism into Christ ala Romans 6) as well as through faith (ie. receipt of what Christ offers, ie. the pro me).
The operation of law/gospel distinctions only occur within the one who is "struck by the Gospel's message" through faith.
Modern American perspectives (including Lindberg) on Luther end up applying notions of law/gospel specifically as phenomenological observations and never arrive at the level of ethos.
Community
Posted by
Gary
at
November 09, 2010 13:46
Dear readselerttoo,
If an organization cannot experience Gospel, it cannot experience Law, because the Law/Gospel definition of Law implies the theological use of the law. If you are talking about the first use of the Law, the civil/political use, that is the use which creates and protects community. It is specifically for human interaction. Your point makes no sense here.
God's law, under any definition, is never retributive. It is for healing, creation, and resurrection. You are confused about the nature of the law, in this case.
A community/organization is a group of individuals, and is part of the life of the individuals within and outside it. Thus these must also experience redemption and resurrection. Thus your point makes no sense, since it denies that the resurrection will affect communities (see Augustine, City of God, and the Revelation to John, for example). The individualistic 'gospel' you are speaking of does not exist.
Your point about criticism is unclear to me. God's law becomes a curse because of sin, not in and of itself. The answer to this is the cross. This is all in Romans. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
You wrote: "The receipt of the Good News finally is intact within taking advantage of one's baptismal renewal (recogizing the benefits of one's baptism into Christ ala Romans 6) as well as through faith (ie. receipt of what Christ offers, ie. the pro me)." This is simply bizarre. There is no "taking advantage of one's baptismal renewal", but rather a once/ongoing baptism simultaneously complete in the signatory event yet incomplete until death. Through this baptism one receives faith through grace. All this is action and gift of God.
And none of this makes sense of your apparent claim that the 8th commandment does not apply to individual action towards groups. Still confused over here...
In Christ,
Gary
If an organization cannot experience Gospel, it cannot experience Law, because the Law/Gospel definition of Law implies the theological use of the law. If you are talking about the first use of the Law, the civil/political use, that is the use which creates and protects community. It is specifically for human interaction. Your point makes no sense here.
God's law, under any definition, is never retributive. It is for healing, creation, and resurrection. You are confused about the nature of the law, in this case.
A community/organization is a group of individuals, and is part of the life of the individuals within and outside it. Thus these must also experience redemption and resurrection. Thus your point makes no sense, since it denies that the resurrection will affect communities (see Augustine, City of God, and the Revelation to John, for example). The individualistic 'gospel' you are speaking of does not exist.
Your point about criticism is unclear to me. God's law becomes a curse because of sin, not in and of itself. The answer to this is the cross. This is all in Romans. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
You wrote: "The receipt of the Good News finally is intact within taking advantage of one's baptismal renewal (recogizing the benefits of one's baptism into Christ ala Romans 6) as well as through faith (ie. receipt of what Christ offers, ie. the pro me)." This is simply bizarre. There is no "taking advantage of one's baptismal renewal", but rather a once/ongoing baptism simultaneously complete in the signatory event yet incomplete until death. Through this baptism one receives faith through grace. All this is action and gift of God.
And none of this makes sense of your apparent claim that the 8th commandment does not apply to individual action towards groups. Still confused over here...
In Christ,
Gary
false presuppositions muddy conclusions
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 12, 2010 16:44
Gary writes: "If an organization cannot experience Gospel, it cannot experience Law,..."
I'm not sure what you mean above.
Let me try and explain further: Regardless of whether the Gospel is operative or not in a particular arena, it is God's Law that always affects regardless of individual or organization. The presupposition of life outside of the Gospel means the old person must come under some sort of management (because God's Law is only for sinners in terms of managing the orders/it is always a retributive process, see P. Melanchthon's discussion under Apology 4 having to do with his enlightening phrase: "The law always accuses.") That is why God has established the Law to not only keep RELATIVE peace and security (I highlight the word RELATIVE because peace and security are never stable and lasting but come under the vicissitudes of history in which both individual sinner and organization (summary of sinners in an association) are bound and also judged.
To begin with the presupposition of the Gospel ignores our boundedness in history which, biblically and theologically, was the result of the fall of Adam and Eve. History proceeds under God's judgment upon sinners. The Gospel however, is addressed and offered for all but each individual hearer is either struck by its message as for him/herself and individual faith takes into him/herself God's promises of redemption.
One cannot place the Gospel first as a presupposed method and then apply God's law. If one was a Calvinist, that might be appropo. but I believe much of both RCism and Reformed get the proper perspective wrongly.
Confessional Lutheranism, however, gets it right at least from the standpoint of the New Testament. Lutherans aren't Lutheran just because of Luther. But we are Lutheran because of the Lutheran Confessions being ways that the Gospel is confessed. ie. first the law and its curse (see Galatians 3) and then the Gospel.
I'm not sure what you mean above.
Let me try and explain further: Regardless of whether the Gospel is operative or not in a particular arena, it is God's Law that always affects regardless of individual or organization. The presupposition of life outside of the Gospel means the old person must come under some sort of management (because God's Law is only for sinners in terms of managing the orders/it is always a retributive process, see P. Melanchthon's discussion under Apology 4 having to do with his enlightening phrase: "The law always accuses.") That is why God has established the Law to not only keep RELATIVE peace and security (I highlight the word RELATIVE because peace and security are never stable and lasting but come under the vicissitudes of history in which both individual sinner and organization (summary of sinners in an association) are bound and also judged.
To begin with the presupposition of the Gospel ignores our boundedness in history which, biblically and theologically, was the result of the fall of Adam and Eve. History proceeds under God's judgment upon sinners. The Gospel however, is addressed and offered for all but each individual hearer is either struck by its message as for him/herself and individual faith takes into him/herself God's promises of redemption.
One cannot place the Gospel first as a presupposed method and then apply God's law. If one was a Calvinist, that might be appropo. but I believe much of both RCism and Reformed get the proper perspective wrongly.
Confessional Lutheranism, however, gets it right at least from the standpoint of the New Testament. Lutherans aren't Lutheran just because of Luther. But we are Lutheran because of the Lutheran Confessions being ways that the Gospel is confessed. ie. first the law and its curse (see Galatians 3) and then the Gospel.
Law, Retribution, Connection
Posted by
Gary
at
November 16, 2010 15:53
Dear readselertoo,
Thank you for your time and patience. You wrote: "because God's Law is only for sinners in terms of managing the orders/it is always a retributive process". This is not working off of what the word "retributive" means in common use. Management is not retribution - the payment of the same wrongs as were perpetrated is, i.e. vengeance or punishment. This is not the same as the accusative use of the Law, a.k.a. the second or theological use of the Law - which is not for retribution but to terrify consciences and drive them to Christ. But what you seem to be referring to is the first use, the establishment of civil order via the Law. If this is the use of the Law you are talking about, we stop there - the Law ordains civil order, which must apply to civil relationships and therefore people to people and person to person. Therefore the eighth commandment applies when interacting with an organization.
If you are trying to talk about the second use of the Law, then we must presuppose the Gospel because the second use of the Law by definition does the same. This does not mean that Gospel is proclaimed before Law (as you seem to imply in the last paragraph), simply that there is Gospel for that Law to drive one (or many) to.
The Gospel is operative everywhere there is the Church (and most likely other places besides, simply not necessarily in a way that humans can see/hear/encounter/find), which is throughout the world. I think here I must not understand what you mean by the Gospel being "operative". But this seems to be beside your point.
You wrote: "History proceeds under God's judgment upon sinners. The Gospel however, is addressed and offered for all but each individual hearer is either struck by its message as for him/herself and individual faith takes into him/herself God's promises of redemption." First of all, history proceeds under God's judgment and redemption of sinners - this is the Biblical narrative. Second, faith receives the promise through grace, and this is one of the aspects of justification. Third, none of this explains how the eighth commandment does not apply to an individual who is speaking to a group/organization/institution.
So can you clarify the connection of your thoughts to applying the Ten Commandments?
In Christ,
Gary
Thank you for your time and patience. You wrote: "because God's Law is only for sinners in terms of managing the orders/it is always a retributive process". This is not working off of what the word "retributive" means in common use. Management is not retribution - the payment of the same wrongs as were perpetrated is, i.e. vengeance or punishment. This is not the same as the accusative use of the Law, a.k.a. the second or theological use of the Law - which is not for retribution but to terrify consciences and drive them to Christ. But what you seem to be referring to is the first use, the establishment of civil order via the Law. If this is the use of the Law you are talking about, we stop there - the Law ordains civil order, which must apply to civil relationships and therefore people to people and person to person. Therefore the eighth commandment applies when interacting with an organization.
If you are trying to talk about the second use of the Law, then we must presuppose the Gospel because the second use of the Law by definition does the same. This does not mean that Gospel is proclaimed before Law (as you seem to imply in the last paragraph), simply that there is Gospel for that Law to drive one (or many) to.
The Gospel is operative everywhere there is the Church (and most likely other places besides, simply not necessarily in a way that humans can see/hear/encounter/find), which is throughout the world. I think here I must not understand what you mean by the Gospel being "operative". But this seems to be beside your point.
You wrote: "History proceeds under God's judgment upon sinners. The Gospel however, is addressed and offered for all but each individual hearer is either struck by its message as for him/herself and individual faith takes into him/herself God's promises of redemption." First of all, history proceeds under God's judgment and redemption of sinners - this is the Biblical narrative. Second, faith receives the promise through grace, and this is one of the aspects of justification. Third, none of this explains how the eighth commandment does not apply to an individual who is speaking to a group/organization/institution.
So can you clarify the connection of your thoughts to applying the Ten Commandments?
In Christ,
Gary
law is exclusively accusatory even in the usus
Posted by
reads elerttoo
at
November 16, 2010 22:32
Gary writes: "Management is not retribution..."
Management and organizational processes do fall under the arena of God's law and therefore are retributive by nature of their force within the divine order. Management in terms of how well an organization runs uses rewards and punishments per se to get results for its own agenda. Retribution in terms of creating an environment for relative security and peace (ie. civil use of the law) uses methods which are not related to the Gospel but only help to procur ambiguous results.
The Gospel is mutually exclusive to the above in that it is God's new way to "manage" sinners in that it makes no claims on them in terms of rewards or punishments but instead God substitutes his Son our Savior Jesus whose death on the cross was FOR sinners. In our place, God has exchanged his Son and all the benefits from His cross so that now we are God's righteousness. It is a gift received by faith. Justification is taking into oneself the benefits from Christ's cross as meant for him/herself. Faith is reception of God's promises.
By the way, God's law, whether 1st or 2nd use makes no difference, are all retributive by nature: Phillip Melanchthon in Apology 4: Lex semper accusat...the law ALWAYS accuses. In fact this applies to the 10 commandments also as Jesus teaches in St. Matthew 5.
Management and organizational processes do fall under the arena of God's law and therefore are retributive by nature of their force within the divine order. Management in terms of how well an organization runs uses rewards and punishments per se to get results for its own agenda. Retribution in terms of creating an environment for relative security and peace (ie. civil use of the law) uses methods which are not related to the Gospel but only help to procur ambiguous results.
The Gospel is mutually exclusive to the above in that it is God's new way to "manage" sinners in that it makes no claims on them in terms of rewards or punishments but instead God substitutes his Son our Savior Jesus whose death on the cross was FOR sinners. In our place, God has exchanged his Son and all the benefits from His cross so that now we are God's righteousness. It is a gift received by faith. Justification is taking into oneself the benefits from Christ's cross as meant for him/herself. Faith is reception of God's promises.
By the way, God's law, whether 1st or 2nd use makes no difference, are all retributive by nature: Phillip Melanchthon in Apology 4: Lex semper accusat...the law ALWAYS accuses. In fact this applies to the 10 commandments also as Jesus teaches in St. Matthew 5.
law is exclusively accusatory even in the usus
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 16, 2010 22:32
Gary writes: "Management is not retribution..."
Management and organizational processes do fall under the arena of God's law and therefore are retributive by nature of their force within the divine order. Management in terms of how well an organization runs uses rewards and punishments per se to get results for its own agenda. Retribution in terms of creating an environment for relative security and peace (ie. civil use of the law) uses methods which are not related to the Gospel but only help to procur ambiguous results.
The Gospel is mutually exclusive to the above in that it is God's new way to "manage" sinners in that it makes no claims on them in terms of rewards or punishments but instead God substitutes his Son our Savior Jesus whose death on the cross was FOR sinners. In our place, God has exchanged his Son and all the benefits from His cross so that now we are God's righteousness. It is a gift received by faith. Justification is taking into oneself the benefits from Christ's cross as meant for him/herself. Faith is reception of God's promises.
By the way, God's law, whether 1st or 2nd use makes no difference, are all retributive by nature: Phillip Melanchthon in Apology 4: Lex semper accusat...the law ALWAYS accuses. In fact this applies to the 10 commandments also as Jesus teaches in St. Matthew 5.
Management and organizational processes do fall under the arena of God's law and therefore are retributive by nature of their force within the divine order. Management in terms of how well an organization runs uses rewards and punishments per se to get results for its own agenda. Retribution in terms of creating an environment for relative security and peace (ie. civil use of the law) uses methods which are not related to the Gospel but only help to procur ambiguous results.
The Gospel is mutually exclusive to the above in that it is God's new way to "manage" sinners in that it makes no claims on them in terms of rewards or punishments but instead God substitutes his Son our Savior Jesus whose death on the cross was FOR sinners. In our place, God has exchanged his Son and all the benefits from His cross so that now we are God's righteousness. It is a gift received by faith. Justification is taking into oneself the benefits from Christ's cross as meant for him/herself. Faith is reception of God's promises.
By the way, God's law, whether 1st or 2nd use makes no difference, are all retributive by nature: Phillip Melanchthon in Apology 4: Lex semper accusat...the law ALWAYS accuses. In fact this applies to the 10 commandments also as Jesus teaches in St. Matthew 5.
Thesis
Posted by
Gary
at
November 18, 2010 09:17
Dear readselerttoo,
What you are saying still makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Management is not retribution, as I explained above. Management can involve retribution - but this does not make them the same thing. The civil use of the law is for the establishment of security and peace, but this does not make the civil use automatically retributive (though in a medieval context naturally this was the most common instance). But in fact the order which comes through the first use of the law is a gift of God - result are ambiguous because of the mixed body of the Church and the nature of human interaction with the first use of the law. Saying it is "not related to the Gospel" may be going a little far, but that's fine.
Justification and the proclamation of the Gospel does not replace the civil use of the law until the kingdom comes. The Gospel is most certainly not exclusive to either of the uses of the law, but is the fulfillment of the law as in Matthew 5 exactly! Claiming that the Gospel is mutually exclusive to the Law is extremely problematic - and I don't see how you have a confessional basis for this. The Gospel is the new way to manage sinners in the sense of the second use of the law and the proclamation of the Gospel - if this is what you mean, however, then your distinctions blur for me to the point of being useless.
By the way, God's law being retributive is not the same as it being accusatory (which I stated above). "Accusation" is not the same as "retribution". I don't seem Matthew 5 as sustaining your argument here - if anything it seems mostly against what you are saying. And when Melanchthon says that the law always accuses, he is referring to the second use of the law by definition - since the first use of the law does not perform that function.
Here is my thesis, which I have not seen you effectively refute: the commandments apply to all interactions, especially between person and persons in the world, and therefore Luther's interpretation of the eighth commandment should apply to Braaten's letter above. These commandments apply - tell me how I am wrong.
In Christ,
Gary
What you are saying still makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Management is not retribution, as I explained above. Management can involve retribution - but this does not make them the same thing. The civil use of the law is for the establishment of security and peace, but this does not make the civil use automatically retributive (though in a medieval context naturally this was the most common instance). But in fact the order which comes through the first use of the law is a gift of God - result are ambiguous because of the mixed body of the Church and the nature of human interaction with the first use of the law. Saying it is "not related to the Gospel" may be going a little far, but that's fine.
Justification and the proclamation of the Gospel does not replace the civil use of the law until the kingdom comes. The Gospel is most certainly not exclusive to either of the uses of the law, but is the fulfillment of the law as in Matthew 5 exactly! Claiming that the Gospel is mutually exclusive to the Law is extremely problematic - and I don't see how you have a confessional basis for this. The Gospel is the new way to manage sinners in the sense of the second use of the law and the proclamation of the Gospel - if this is what you mean, however, then your distinctions blur for me to the point of being useless.
By the way, God's law being retributive is not the same as it being accusatory (which I stated above). "Accusation" is not the same as "retribution". I don't seem Matthew 5 as sustaining your argument here - if anything it seems mostly against what you are saying. And when Melanchthon says that the law always accuses, he is referring to the second use of the law by definition - since the first use of the law does not perform that function.
Here is my thesis, which I have not seen you effectively refute: the commandments apply to all interactions, especially between person and persons in the world, and therefore Luther's interpretation of the eighth commandment should apply to Braaten's letter above. These commandments apply - tell me how I am wrong.
In Christ,
Gary
another response and comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 23, 2010 15:39
Gary writes: "You seem to say that the promise of salvation is extended to individuals and not communities. Yet what is the Church but a community, comprised of communities? Are not the Word and Sacraments received in community? Does the ELCA not have the Word and Sacraments, even as the Roman church did in Luther's day? And did not Luther therefore declare the Roman "organization" was still the Church?"
19th century idealism created misappropriating societal theories at the expense of what God was doing with the Word and Sacraments. The community never comes first. What does come first in the progression is the "church's" preaching of the Gospel and administration of the means of grace. As a byproduct of this people gather together to listen. So what is prior is first the activity as well as the living Body of Christ into whom individuals are baptized. The community that gathers consists of believers and unbelievers/ baptized and unbaptized. So perhaps what follows and is finally a community, but our presuppositions as we talk about ecclesiology never can begin with the community but with the church's preaching and administration within a public setting. See Augsburg Confession for further guidance. 19th century idealism in the person of F. Schleiermacher reversed the progression and first founded the church upon alien ideas based on sociological theory.
Only individuals can be saved and communities happen to be inhabited by believers and unbelievers. Communities en masse cannot hear the Gospel.
19th century idealism created misappropriating societal theories at the expense of what God was doing with the Word and Sacraments. The community never comes first. What does come first in the progression is the "church's" preaching of the Gospel and administration of the means of grace. As a byproduct of this people gather together to listen. So what is prior is first the activity as well as the living Body of Christ into whom individuals are baptized. The community that gathers consists of believers and unbelievers/ baptized and unbaptized. So perhaps what follows and is finally a community, but our presuppositions as we talk about ecclesiology never can begin with the community but with the church's preaching and administration within a public setting. See Augsburg Confession for further guidance. 19th century idealism in the person of F. Schleiermacher reversed the progression and first founded the church upon alien ideas based on sociological theory.
Only individuals can be saved and communities happen to be inhabited by believers and unbelievers. Communities en masse cannot hear the Gospel.
Distinctions and Terms
Posted by
Gary
at
November 25, 2010 12:00
Dear readselerttoo,
I don't understand your distinctions. Most proclamations of God's saving action in the Bible occur in the midst of groups. Isn't the Church event only one that occurs in a community? The Church is, by definition, the Body of Christ. That is, speaking in human terms, a plural body. AC VII: "[The Church] is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel." (German Text) "The church is the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly." (Latin Text) The Church as a group clearly does not begin with Schleiermacher. I would say it is more likely to begin with Paul, if not Jesus, if not Moses.
You wrote that the "community never comes first". If by this you mean that the Church event is what creates community, I agree. However, this is by definition an act upon multiple persons. And since the Church is event and also assembly (see above), your distinction is actually false. To say the Gospel is received by individuals who then form a community is to confuse the nature of the Church - the Church is the Body of Christ in the world, brought forth by preaching of the Word and administering of the Sacraments to the assembly gathered and sent by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel is only preached, administered, and received when "two or three are gathered" - you cannot be Church if there is only one of you. This has nothing to do with sociological categories.
Since you brought up baptism, let's look at that. If Baptism is entry into the Body of Christ, which on earth is made of multiple individuals and yet is one, how do you make your claim that only individuals can be saved? Are you saying that one cannot baptize a household (see Acts 16:31, 16:15, 10:47-48)?
Also I have a concern about your distinction between believers and unbelievers. I use these terms in a way that is related to saint and sinner - the Church is inhabited by those who are both simultaneously (simul). Perhaps what I am not understanding is your definition of community. A community is, for my purposes, a group of people. An assembly is a gathering of people. Therefore the Church event (always in assembly) MUST create a community (otherwise there was no assembly and therefore no Church event). Perhaps that is why I am so confused as to what you are trying to say.
To summarize: your distinction seems to be false unless it serves no purpose. If you are saying "communities do not have ears" then you are talking about sociology (or some other set of terms) - I only mean a group of people, and a group of people most certainly has ears. Therefore groups can hear the Gospel.
Have a blessed holiday,
In Christ,
Gary
I don't understand your distinctions. Most proclamations of God's saving action in the Bible occur in the midst of groups. Isn't the Church event only one that occurs in a community? The Church is, by definition, the Body of Christ. That is, speaking in human terms, a plural body. AC VII: "[The Church] is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel." (German Text) "The church is the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly." (Latin Text) The Church as a group clearly does not begin with Schleiermacher. I would say it is more likely to begin with Paul, if not Jesus, if not Moses.
You wrote that the "community never comes first". If by this you mean that the Church event is what creates community, I agree. However, this is by definition an act upon multiple persons. And since the Church is event and also assembly (see above), your distinction is actually false. To say the Gospel is received by individuals who then form a community is to confuse the nature of the Church - the Church is the Body of Christ in the world, brought forth by preaching of the Word and administering of the Sacraments to the assembly gathered and sent by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel is only preached, administered, and received when "two or three are gathered" - you cannot be Church if there is only one of you. This has nothing to do with sociological categories.
Since you brought up baptism, let's look at that. If Baptism is entry into the Body of Christ, which on earth is made of multiple individuals and yet is one, how do you make your claim that only individuals can be saved? Are you saying that one cannot baptize a household (see Acts 16:31, 16:15, 10:47-48)?
Also I have a concern about your distinction between believers and unbelievers. I use these terms in a way that is related to saint and sinner - the Church is inhabited by those who are both simultaneously (simul). Perhaps what I am not understanding is your definition of community. A community is, for my purposes, a group of people. An assembly is a gathering of people. Therefore the Church event (always in assembly) MUST create a community (otherwise there was no assembly and therefore no Church event). Perhaps that is why I am so confused as to what you are trying to say.
To summarize: your distinction seems to be false unless it serves no purpose. If you are saying "communities do not have ears" then you are talking about sociology (or some other set of terms) - I only mean a group of people, and a group of people most certainly has ears. Therefore groups can hear the Gospel.
Have a blessed holiday,
In Christ,
Gary
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 26, 2010 14:59
A community is made up of individuals who, summarized into a collective, are then a community.
You talk as if a community can exist as an entity by itself without prior influence and direction of individuals who make up a community. "You are the Body of Christ and INDIVIDUALLY members of it." I Cor.12:27
You talk as if a community can exist as an entity by itself without prior influence and direction of individuals who make up a community. "You are the Body of Christ and INDIVIDUALLY members of it." I Cor.12:27
Unclear
Posted by
Gary
at
November 30, 2010 16:20
Dear readselerttoo,
If you are defining community as you have above, then community is a community when "summarized into a collective" from individuals. Except that "summarized into a collective" doesn't mean anything to me - I don't know what you mean by this. Where do I speak as though community can exist as an "entity by itself"? Your emphasis that individuals make up communities is irrelevant, so far as I can see - as well as a repetition of something I've been saying all along. Saying a community hears the gospel is synonymous with saying that a specific group of individuals hears the gospel. Your definition of community is still opaque enough to be useless. Clarification would be appreciated.
In Christ,
Gary
If you are defining community as you have above, then community is a community when "summarized into a collective" from individuals. Except that "summarized into a collective" doesn't mean anything to me - I don't know what you mean by this. Where do I speak as though community can exist as an "entity by itself"? Your emphasis that individuals make up communities is irrelevant, so far as I can see - as well as a repetition of something I've been saying all along. Saying a community hears the gospel is synonymous with saying that a specific group of individuals hears the gospel. Your definition of community is still opaque enough to be useless. Clarification would be appreciated.
In Christ,
Gary
Honor
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
November 06, 2010 15:46
Dear Gary:
I apologize for taking this long to respond to your challenges. As they are wont to do, my laptop seized up and scrambled my initial text making it unusable.
I thought quite a bit as to whether to write you back. As I read your entry, it seemed to me that you asked your questions and then answered them to your own satisfaction. My better judgment was to let the questions stand. But I often don’t listen to my better judgment so I’ll give it a shot.
I fail to understand how anyone can read Lutheran Forum and then claim ignorance of what “these criticisms” could be. It is as if that person has newly arrived from Mars and doesn’t know and understand the constellation of issues which have vexed the ELCA over at least the last ten years. My entry was one modest contribution to a long conversation that has taken place in these pages for years. As Peter can tell you, he and I have had several drawn out exchanges in Lutheran Forum just in the last few months and I believe Peter would agree with me that we have been only minor characters in that conversation.
I am certain that by just my last entry that you know that 1.) I am a dissenter from the CWA decisions on sexuality and the admissibility of practicing homosexuals into ELCA clerical ministry. 2.) I am sympathetic to the formation of the North American Lutheran Church. And 3.) I am posed to leave the ELCA for some other church body. I have no patience for silly seminarians who want to split hairs feigning ignorance rather than speaking frankly.
Most people regard “calling evil good” a lie. A falsehood, even if you believe it to be true, is still a falsehood—a lie. The lie is especially heinous when it fails to warn against a moral hazard. To say anything less than that the Scriptures condemn homosexual behavior as a grave sin is a lie. To sequester two thousand years of consistent Christian and rabbinical theological commentary as just one opinion among many is a lie against any notion of ecumenical and orthodox Christianity.
Debatable? Obviously it has been. Should it have been? That’s a question all by itself. Whether the debate should or should not have taken places, the time has come for the ELCA leadership and their supporters to deal with the dissenters where they “are at” rather than where they want them to be. The dissenters have come to convictions. Debatable convictions? Let’s stipulate “yes” they are debatable. But just because they are debatable doesn’t mean the dissenters cannot and should not act on those convictions.
For some reason, people who are more or less liberal think they are making some profound point by pointing out the obvious to those who are more or less conservative. I am one such conservative. As night follows day, whenever I make the conservative case on any number of issues, invariably someone feels compelled to “reveal” to me that “but not everybody agrees with you”. Believe me. I already know that. “Liberals” constantly feel the need to remind me of that fact. But there is another side to that coin. Conservatives generally learn that no one will listen until you insist on being heard. Liberals and moderates feel no need to include anything for conservatives in a compromise unless conservatives step up to the plate and fight for it. Fight. Speak up. Be a brick. Asking gets you nothing. Just because you are in the room doesn’t mean you are included. Even after all that, conservatives may still be ignored and their convictions kept out. It is at that point conservatives must be prepared to act on and live out their principles. No one will think twice and take you seriously unless you do.
One of those principles we will get to shortly.
“In my name” is a common English idiom. Twenty years ago, just after the establishment of the ELCA, with heavy personal cost I left my congregation because it was determined to bolt from the ELCA (which it did shortly afterward). I believed in and had great hopes for the new ELCA and was at the constituting assembly for my synod as a voting delegate. Still my heart was invested in my congregation. But I could not stand behind their platform. Thus I lost a church home for which I sat on the church council for over six years and friends who would not understand why I did not throw my lot in with them. But, no matter how you slice it, if I had stayed, I would have been indelibly associated with dividing my congregation from the ELCA—and rightly so. In spite of any special pleading that I was in the minority, remaining a member would have constituted tacit approval for which I would have been accountable. For good or bad, whatever my original congregation had done would have colored my name to even the most casual observers.
In the same way, in spite of the ELCA’s protestations to the contrary, my membership in the ELCA makes me answerable for the decisions made by the CWA. I have been met with dozens of public encounters in which individuals believe that since the ELCA approves of admitting individuals who actively engage in homosexual behavior into the clergy that I approve as well. Concomitantly, they also deduce that I have no moral objection biblical or otherwise with homosexual behavior in itself. (I should add that with a lot of people this makes me a great guy.)
The simple fact is that, however much I really would rather agree with the CWA, I cannot in good conscience go there and be intellectually honest with myself. Yet, my church, the ELCA, boldly enters the public forum with teaching and example that is profoundly contrary with the Bible and orthodox Christianity. The ELCA in turn also instructs guidance and council internally for its own membership. Many, many individuals both in church and in the “secular” world take a great deal of reassurance in the ELCA’s “gay-friendly” stance. When the ELCA speaks, does it speak for me? The public sure thinks it does and the ELCA knows it. Does remaining a member in the ELCA constitute tacit approval of its dramatic and radical setting aside of Biblical law and consistent orthodox and ecumenical teaching? The ELCA leadership from the beginning has insisted that practicing homosexuals in the ministry and the blessing of same-sex unions are not important issues. You can disagree but just don’t say these are crucial issues. But they are decisive l issues and they say exactly who you are. Leaving is no mere temper tantrum. It will cost me a lot and I don’t relish the day it will happen.
It puzzles me how anyone can go to seminary and not hear of the Christian feminist “re-visioning” project. I should think it should be old hat. The Christian feminists,(by their lights, encourage seeing God in a more “gender-transcendent” way. Christian feminists have made the case that true gender equality within the church cannot be achieved without rethinking the portrayal and understanding of God as a masculine being. I have never had one class in seminary and rarely have anything to do with seminarians let alone their professors; but even I heard of these things while I studied anthropology in graduate school. The first formulation I had ever heard myself was the usage of “Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter” in the late 1970’s. (Another, although less common, usage was “Maker, Savior and Sustainer”.)
Perhaps, you, your fellows, and your professors do not see this naming of the Trinity as an exceptional departure from that of historical Christianity. (Given the number of years it has been in circulation that would be understandable.) Nonetheless, as the ELCA bishops themselves pointed out in the 1990’s, this formulation names activities not persons and they strongly discouraged its use. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have gone the extra yard to say that any sacrament instituted apart from “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is invalid. By my lights, the pronouncement by ELCA bishops and the Roman-Orthodox churches were correct; but “Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter” is still used in some quarters.
Christian feminists have also played around with a theological concept known as “Sophia”. I am not familiar with all the details of this particular movement except to say that the idea is to “replace” the Holy Spirit with a being/symbol which more reflects women’s religious experiences. As I understand it, “Sophia” would not replace the Holy Spirit but rather be an evolution into an enlightened understanding.
Truthfully, I have some sympathy for these proposals; but there are significant objections in carrying them out. Anyone who has frolicked through the fever swamps of Gnosticism would recognize Gnosticism as the wellspring of the “re-visioning” project. One would also note that the project rests on speculations with sparse grounding in the revealed truth in Scripture.
All this and we aren’t even discussing the attempts to allow the usage of “Holy Mother” in the various liturgies. Still, as I wrote in my original post, I only see a few straws in the wind. Here’s to hoping nothing comes of it. However, take note that the issue of same-sex sexuality and blessing same-sex partnerships wasn’t on anyone’s radar as late as 1995.
To your third point, I predicted as early as 2000 that the resolution of the sexuality issue after it worked its way through all the churchly machinations would be some form of “home-rule”. That is, give each congregation the right to determine for themselves whether to call practicing homosexual Pastors. By extension, the authority to “bless same-sex couples” would follow behind in time. That is exactly what has happened. What’s more, that was the intention all along. What they wanted to do all along was to remove the ban—which they did.
To your fourth point, forgive me, but you have compounded several issues together that need to be disentangled and treated separately. If you go back to my original submission, I was describing the problematic situation the troubled Lutheran in the pew finds himself in. You cannot, as Peter does, assume that since he hasn’t gone anywhere (yet!) it means that he has made his peace with the CWA decisions—or in Peter’s words “do not see the CWA actions as schismatic”.
It is a little ironic that the same leadership that bemoans the congregational behavior of the majority of ELCA parishes now asserts that that same congregationalism will protect dissenters. They are correct on both counts in a way.
The reality is that, whatever advantages there are to a congregationalist polity, we are all a part of the larger church. One can’t get away from the ELCA as part of your identity as an individual and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise. The question comes back: on this crucial cultural issue which has divided our country, can you stand behind the ELCA in its public witness and teaching? If you cannot, isn’t it dishonorable and disrespectful to the ELCA to stay? Perhaps the whole question of honor is not one many if not most see as relevant; but it is certainly a real dilemma for me. The church is not a nation where one’s citizenship and dissent are not in conflict with one another. The church is a voluntary association where individuals are bound together by shared beliefs, values and expectations. Adhering to those things and claiming membership impacts one’s personal integrity.. Granted, many within the church claim they are Lutheran yet deny that Jesus was a real historical person. They “can” and do so; but that doesn’t mean it is principled to do so.
It is also true that there is nothing in ELCA polity to force a congregation to accept a gay Pastor or perform blessings. You may well, as I do, belong to a congregation which would do neither. For now. Presently, my congregation fits into the state I related in my last entry. One third is opposed, one is for, and the last uncertain. The first practical issue that would first come to fore in most congregations would not be a gay Pastor but “blessings”. I am reliably informed that most coming through their seminary education favor performing such blessings. Given the influence Pastors have on their church councils as well as on their congregations, the cumulative weight of succeeding classes of the clergy would press the adoption of blessing ceremonies. “After all”, so the reasoning would go, “just because the Pastor does it that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with you”. Given my own experiences in the academic and corporate worlds, such “slippery slopes” are more common than not. What was once unthinkable is rationalized into standard practice one step at a time. Diversity at that point becomes a funny thing. “You are free to think whatever you want; but you can’t bring it up in polite company. We are a multicultural and inclusive organization and you have no right to spout you bigoted views. You will offend and hurt others.” Don’t tell me that can’t happen because I’ve been there. The paper promises guaranteeing protections for individual conscience have a way of being forgotten as diversity officers see it as their mission to condemn and root out “homophobia”.
You accidentally hit on something when write: “the attraction of the NALC makes no sense unless there are other differences”. Those who attended the “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” theological conference or listened to the presentations on the net recognize there are other differences. Presiding Bishop Hanson himself has commented that the “gay pastor” disputes expose a profound deeper disagreement on the authority of Scripture: how it is read and how it is used. This is at the root of the creation of the NALC. I would refer you to these presentations. Of course, a devoted reader of Lutheran Forum would be familiar with many of their thoughts on the matter already.
As to your last paragraph, I would remind you that Jesus, the prophets, St. Paul, and Luther himself had some not so nice things to say to religious leaders who distort and ignore Scripture. They didn’t sound all that loving either. (Something many atheists such as Bertrand Russell have pointed out.) But looks can be deceiving. I will let those who know me best decide for themselves what kind of loving Christian I am. I can tell you without hesitation I’m a bad one. Bad or not, it doesn’t change the case against the ELCA. I have never been under any illusion that “to those who do not already agree, [I] lack persuasive power”. I far as I can tell we are on opposite sides of a theological faultline that goes back centuries before you and I were born. We don’t work from the same premises in too many ways.
If you will, a point of personal privilege. Earlier this year, I almost died of a heart attack. Indeed, my cardiologists did not think I would survive. As I laid in my hospital bed with numerous tubes going in and out of my body and hooked up to about a dozen torture machines, I grasped that I still might not see the end of the year. Among the many things I thought about I realized I had spent too much of my life trying to be nice and reason with people over these issues who were not interested in possibly changing their minds. In too many of those discussions, loving Christians left the room shouting indignation calling me colorful names. I had endured contempt from self-described loving Christians much too long. I had also spent too many sleepless nights worrying about my ELCA after the CWA, troubled about what I should do, trying to see our disagreements in a different light, and questioning myself. Could I make a separate peace? It had all been a waste of time. Enough with all that. I realized (among many other things) I owed it to everyone to stop being “nice” and be as honest and authentic as I could. It some ways it has been a relief. In other ways it hasn’t been a lot of fun.
In time, probably sooner than later, no one will care what any damning things dissenters say against the ELCA’s “character”—ad hominem or otherwise. What may happen is that years hence “those who do not already agree” may stop being defensive and become curious enough to try to understand dissenters as we understand ourselves. Maybe spare some sympathy.
I apologize for taking this long to respond to your challenges. As they are wont to do, my laptop seized up and scrambled my initial text making it unusable.
I thought quite a bit as to whether to write you back. As I read your entry, it seemed to me that you asked your questions and then answered them to your own satisfaction. My better judgment was to let the questions stand. But I often don’t listen to my better judgment so I’ll give it a shot.
I fail to understand how anyone can read Lutheran Forum and then claim ignorance of what “these criticisms” could be. It is as if that person has newly arrived from Mars and doesn’t know and understand the constellation of issues which have vexed the ELCA over at least the last ten years. My entry was one modest contribution to a long conversation that has taken place in these pages for years. As Peter can tell you, he and I have had several drawn out exchanges in Lutheran Forum just in the last few months and I believe Peter would agree with me that we have been only minor characters in that conversation.
I am certain that by just my last entry that you know that 1.) I am a dissenter from the CWA decisions on sexuality and the admissibility of practicing homosexuals into ELCA clerical ministry. 2.) I am sympathetic to the formation of the North American Lutheran Church. And 3.) I am posed to leave the ELCA for some other church body. I have no patience for silly seminarians who want to split hairs feigning ignorance rather than speaking frankly.
Most people regard “calling evil good” a lie. A falsehood, even if you believe it to be true, is still a falsehood—a lie. The lie is especially heinous when it fails to warn against a moral hazard. To say anything less than that the Scriptures condemn homosexual behavior as a grave sin is a lie. To sequester two thousand years of consistent Christian and rabbinical theological commentary as just one opinion among many is a lie against any notion of ecumenical and orthodox Christianity.
Debatable? Obviously it has been. Should it have been? That’s a question all by itself. Whether the debate should or should not have taken places, the time has come for the ELCA leadership and their supporters to deal with the dissenters where they “are at” rather than where they want them to be. The dissenters have come to convictions. Debatable convictions? Let’s stipulate “yes” they are debatable. But just because they are debatable doesn’t mean the dissenters cannot and should not act on those convictions.
For some reason, people who are more or less liberal think they are making some profound point by pointing out the obvious to those who are more or less conservative. I am one such conservative. As night follows day, whenever I make the conservative case on any number of issues, invariably someone feels compelled to “reveal” to me that “but not everybody agrees with you”. Believe me. I already know that. “Liberals” constantly feel the need to remind me of that fact. But there is another side to that coin. Conservatives generally learn that no one will listen until you insist on being heard. Liberals and moderates feel no need to include anything for conservatives in a compromise unless conservatives step up to the plate and fight for it. Fight. Speak up. Be a brick. Asking gets you nothing. Just because you are in the room doesn’t mean you are included. Even after all that, conservatives may still be ignored and their convictions kept out. It is at that point conservatives must be prepared to act on and live out their principles. No one will think twice and take you seriously unless you do.
One of those principles we will get to shortly.
“In my name” is a common English idiom. Twenty years ago, just after the establishment of the ELCA, with heavy personal cost I left my congregation because it was determined to bolt from the ELCA (which it did shortly afterward). I believed in and had great hopes for the new ELCA and was at the constituting assembly for my synod as a voting delegate. Still my heart was invested in my congregation. But I could not stand behind their platform. Thus I lost a church home for which I sat on the church council for over six years and friends who would not understand why I did not throw my lot in with them. But, no matter how you slice it, if I had stayed, I would have been indelibly associated with dividing my congregation from the ELCA—and rightly so. In spite of any special pleading that I was in the minority, remaining a member would have constituted tacit approval for which I would have been accountable. For good or bad, whatever my original congregation had done would have colored my name to even the most casual observers.
In the same way, in spite of the ELCA’s protestations to the contrary, my membership in the ELCA makes me answerable for the decisions made by the CWA. I have been met with dozens of public encounters in which individuals believe that since the ELCA approves of admitting individuals who actively engage in homosexual behavior into the clergy that I approve as well. Concomitantly, they also deduce that I have no moral objection biblical or otherwise with homosexual behavior in itself. (I should add that with a lot of people this makes me a great guy.)
The simple fact is that, however much I really would rather agree with the CWA, I cannot in good conscience go there and be intellectually honest with myself. Yet, my church, the ELCA, boldly enters the public forum with teaching and example that is profoundly contrary with the Bible and orthodox Christianity. The ELCA in turn also instructs guidance and council internally for its own membership. Many, many individuals both in church and in the “secular” world take a great deal of reassurance in the ELCA’s “gay-friendly” stance. When the ELCA speaks, does it speak for me? The public sure thinks it does and the ELCA knows it. Does remaining a member in the ELCA constitute tacit approval of its dramatic and radical setting aside of Biblical law and consistent orthodox and ecumenical teaching? The ELCA leadership from the beginning has insisted that practicing homosexuals in the ministry and the blessing of same-sex unions are not important issues. You can disagree but just don’t say these are crucial issues. But they are decisive l issues and they say exactly who you are. Leaving is no mere temper tantrum. It will cost me a lot and I don’t relish the day it will happen.
It puzzles me how anyone can go to seminary and not hear of the Christian feminist “re-visioning” project. I should think it should be old hat. The Christian feminists,(by their lights, encourage seeing God in a more “gender-transcendent” way. Christian feminists have made the case that true gender equality within the church cannot be achieved without rethinking the portrayal and understanding of God as a masculine being. I have never had one class in seminary and rarely have anything to do with seminarians let alone their professors; but even I heard of these things while I studied anthropology in graduate school. The first formulation I had ever heard myself was the usage of “Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter” in the late 1970’s. (Another, although less common, usage was “Maker, Savior and Sustainer”.)
Perhaps, you, your fellows, and your professors do not see this naming of the Trinity as an exceptional departure from that of historical Christianity. (Given the number of years it has been in circulation that would be understandable.) Nonetheless, as the ELCA bishops themselves pointed out in the 1990’s, this formulation names activities not persons and they strongly discouraged its use. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have gone the extra yard to say that any sacrament instituted apart from “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is invalid. By my lights, the pronouncement by ELCA bishops and the Roman-Orthodox churches were correct; but “Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter” is still used in some quarters.
Christian feminists have also played around with a theological concept known as “Sophia”. I am not familiar with all the details of this particular movement except to say that the idea is to “replace” the Holy Spirit with a being/symbol which more reflects women’s religious experiences. As I understand it, “Sophia” would not replace the Holy Spirit but rather be an evolution into an enlightened understanding.
Truthfully, I have some sympathy for these proposals; but there are significant objections in carrying them out. Anyone who has frolicked through the fever swamps of Gnosticism would recognize Gnosticism as the wellspring of the “re-visioning” project. One would also note that the project rests on speculations with sparse grounding in the revealed truth in Scripture.
All this and we aren’t even discussing the attempts to allow the usage of “Holy Mother” in the various liturgies. Still, as I wrote in my original post, I only see a few straws in the wind. Here’s to hoping nothing comes of it. However, take note that the issue of same-sex sexuality and blessing same-sex partnerships wasn’t on anyone’s radar as late as 1995.
To your third point, I predicted as early as 2000 that the resolution of the sexuality issue after it worked its way through all the churchly machinations would be some form of “home-rule”. That is, give each congregation the right to determine for themselves whether to call practicing homosexual Pastors. By extension, the authority to “bless same-sex couples” would follow behind in time. That is exactly what has happened. What’s more, that was the intention all along. What they wanted to do all along was to remove the ban—which they did.
To your fourth point, forgive me, but you have compounded several issues together that need to be disentangled and treated separately. If you go back to my original submission, I was describing the problematic situation the troubled Lutheran in the pew finds himself in. You cannot, as Peter does, assume that since he hasn’t gone anywhere (yet!) it means that he has made his peace with the CWA decisions—or in Peter’s words “do not see the CWA actions as schismatic”.
It is a little ironic that the same leadership that bemoans the congregational behavior of the majority of ELCA parishes now asserts that that same congregationalism will protect dissenters. They are correct on both counts in a way.
The reality is that, whatever advantages there are to a congregationalist polity, we are all a part of the larger church. One can’t get away from the ELCA as part of your identity as an individual and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise. The question comes back: on this crucial cultural issue which has divided our country, can you stand behind the ELCA in its public witness and teaching? If you cannot, isn’t it dishonorable and disrespectful to the ELCA to stay? Perhaps the whole question of honor is not one many if not most see as relevant; but it is certainly a real dilemma for me. The church is not a nation where one’s citizenship and dissent are not in conflict with one another. The church is a voluntary association where individuals are bound together by shared beliefs, values and expectations. Adhering to those things and claiming membership impacts one’s personal integrity.. Granted, many within the church claim they are Lutheran yet deny that Jesus was a real historical person. They “can” and do so; but that doesn’t mean it is principled to do so.
It is also true that there is nothing in ELCA polity to force a congregation to accept a gay Pastor or perform blessings. You may well, as I do, belong to a congregation which would do neither. For now. Presently, my congregation fits into the state I related in my last entry. One third is opposed, one is for, and the last uncertain. The first practical issue that would first come to fore in most congregations would not be a gay Pastor but “blessings”. I am reliably informed that most coming through their seminary education favor performing such blessings. Given the influence Pastors have on their church councils as well as on their congregations, the cumulative weight of succeeding classes of the clergy would press the adoption of blessing ceremonies. “After all”, so the reasoning would go, “just because the Pastor does it that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with you”. Given my own experiences in the academic and corporate worlds, such “slippery slopes” are more common than not. What was once unthinkable is rationalized into standard practice one step at a time. Diversity at that point becomes a funny thing. “You are free to think whatever you want; but you can’t bring it up in polite company. We are a multicultural and inclusive organization and you have no right to spout you bigoted views. You will offend and hurt others.” Don’t tell me that can’t happen because I’ve been there. The paper promises guaranteeing protections for individual conscience have a way of being forgotten as diversity officers see it as their mission to condemn and root out “homophobia”.
You accidentally hit on something when write: “the attraction of the NALC makes no sense unless there are other differences”. Those who attended the “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” theological conference or listened to the presentations on the net recognize there are other differences. Presiding Bishop Hanson himself has commented that the “gay pastor” disputes expose a profound deeper disagreement on the authority of Scripture: how it is read and how it is used. This is at the root of the creation of the NALC. I would refer you to these presentations. Of course, a devoted reader of Lutheran Forum would be familiar with many of their thoughts on the matter already.
As to your last paragraph, I would remind you that Jesus, the prophets, St. Paul, and Luther himself had some not so nice things to say to religious leaders who distort and ignore Scripture. They didn’t sound all that loving either. (Something many atheists such as Bertrand Russell have pointed out.) But looks can be deceiving. I will let those who know me best decide for themselves what kind of loving Christian I am. I can tell you without hesitation I’m a bad one. Bad or not, it doesn’t change the case against the ELCA. I have never been under any illusion that “to those who do not already agree, [I] lack persuasive power”. I far as I can tell we are on opposite sides of a theological faultline that goes back centuries before you and I were born. We don’t work from the same premises in too many ways.
If you will, a point of personal privilege. Earlier this year, I almost died of a heart attack. Indeed, my cardiologists did not think I would survive. As I laid in my hospital bed with numerous tubes going in and out of my body and hooked up to about a dozen torture machines, I grasped that I still might not see the end of the year. Among the many things I thought about I realized I had spent too much of my life trying to be nice and reason with people over these issues who were not interested in possibly changing their minds. In too many of those discussions, loving Christians left the room shouting indignation calling me colorful names. I had endured contempt from self-described loving Christians much too long. I had also spent too many sleepless nights worrying about my ELCA after the CWA, troubled about what I should do, trying to see our disagreements in a different light, and questioning myself. Could I make a separate peace? It had all been a waste of time. Enough with all that. I realized (among many other things) I owed it to everyone to stop being “nice” and be as honest and authentic as I could. It some ways it has been a relief. In other ways it hasn’t been a lot of fun.
In time, probably sooner than later, no one will care what any damning things dissenters say against the ELCA’s “character”—ad hominem or otherwise. What may happen is that years hence “those who do not already agree” may stop being defensive and become curious enough to try to understand dissenters as we understand ourselves. Maybe spare some sympathy.
still dancing
Posted by
Peter
at
November 07, 2010 14:06
Mick,
I think Gary asked about the criticisms because there are an awful lot of them going around, and he wanted to be able to discuss specifically the ones you had without making any assumptions about what you believe. It's not splitting hairs, so much as a desire not to put words in your mouth and to try to understand you as you understand yourself. For all that we are small parts of a larger conversation, there are multiple sides to that larger conversation and divisions within those sides, and speaking to sides that aren't relevant to the individuals in question is just talking past each other.
For me, one of the most impressive things about the CWA09 resolution is that as mild as it is-- the descriptive statement that the church does not have consensus on the sinfulness of homosexuality and making room for proclamation of the Gospel by people on all sides of that issue makes the ELCA a 'gay-friendly' church organization. That's an incredibly sad statement about what passes for 'gay-friendly' in churches, as in reality it IS about as 'gay-friendly' as it is 'dissenter-friendly'. The church's statements don't favor either group. Bp Hanson's remarks immediately following the vote were not ones of celebration and triumph. He has recently spoken out against the recent LGBT suicides, but my understanding is that whatever our position on the sinfulness of homosexuality is, we do have common ground in trying to prevent suicides. Even if you would have said things differently, the main point of him speaking on the 'It gets better' project is not to push a gay agenda, but to speak up as church against teen suicide, specifically amongst LGBT youth. Given our situations, we're tempted to say 'he's coming down on the pro-gay side', when in reality, he's coming down against the 'God hates fags' side. Or am I incorrect in thinking that most dissenters condemn overt violence against the LGBT community?
I would also like to clarify that I am not trying to insist that no one is troubled by the CWA actions or that those staying have fully made peace with them yet. I'm saying that they don't see it as church-dividing. Much in the way that we might be extremely troubled if we had a daughter in high school who comes home one day to tell us that she's 4 months pregnant by some boy she's already broken up with, but that's not automatically family-dividing.
Especially in the case of the church, it is shared trust in Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins that binds us together, or so the Augsburg Confession claims. That is what binds us, even though individual practices are different. For example, in Africa, they have a shortage of ordained ministers, and yet they get Word and Sacrament to the masses. And yet picture the uproar here if an unordained person wanted to perform the Sacrament, let alone actually attempt such a thing without having the express permission of the bishop. It's also what binds us to those in the LCMS, the Roman Church and the Orthodox, most of whom won't budge on closed communion and women's ordination, among other things, as a result of different teachings regarding both Law and Gospel. So in a way, you can't escape, short of abandoning Christianity. And even that, if Jonah and Romans is anything to go by, isn't a sure bet.
I will admit that I do not understand the importance of honor. Part of my lack of understanding is undoubtably the influence of the plethora of the literature, movies etc where a protagonist must choose between maintaining his honor and letting people die/suffer/etc as a consequence. Part of it also is that I don't see any room in the NT, particularly 1 Corinthians 8-9, for honor, but rather for surrendering our claim to honor to God that He may work redemption in us through Jesus Christ in the face of our conscience convicting us. Honor is also a word that I identify with the purity demanded of the Jews by God, which as a Lutheran I believe is not fully attainable. Instead, what honor we have is a gift from God to be used to further God's design, which is the proclamation of the Gospel.
I also have two comments on the Trinity. One is that "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" isn't properly describing persons either, but roles. We don't pray to "Father", but we assign the role of father to God. "Son" describes the relationship of Jesus to God. Likewise, "Holy Ghost/Spirit" is entirely descriptive. How many other spirits do we know? Is Luther's ghost holy? Would that make it a 'holy ghost'? If we were properly using names, it would have to be something like "Osiris, Horus and Isis", not that I intend to identify parts of the Egyptian pantheon with the Trinity. "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" are as easily names as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
My second comment is that most of the Sophia formulations I have seen are worse than what you've described. They identify her with Christ, not the Holy Spirit, which is completely contrary to the Augsburg Confession so far as I can tell. The real irony will be when CORE and the dissenters are the ones who really bring new words for the Trinity and spread the Sophia-nonsense throughout the ELCA by making opposition to it their public stand.
I think Gary asked about the criticisms because there are an awful lot of them going around, and he wanted to be able to discuss specifically the ones you had without making any assumptions about what you believe. It's not splitting hairs, so much as a desire not to put words in your mouth and to try to understand you as you understand yourself. For all that we are small parts of a larger conversation, there are multiple sides to that larger conversation and divisions within those sides, and speaking to sides that aren't relevant to the individuals in question is just talking past each other.
For me, one of the most impressive things about the CWA09 resolution is that as mild as it is-- the descriptive statement that the church does not have consensus on the sinfulness of homosexuality and making room for proclamation of the Gospel by people on all sides of that issue makes the ELCA a 'gay-friendly' church organization. That's an incredibly sad statement about what passes for 'gay-friendly' in churches, as in reality it IS about as 'gay-friendly' as it is 'dissenter-friendly'. The church's statements don't favor either group. Bp Hanson's remarks immediately following the vote were not ones of celebration and triumph. He has recently spoken out against the recent LGBT suicides, but my understanding is that whatever our position on the sinfulness of homosexuality is, we do have common ground in trying to prevent suicides. Even if you would have said things differently, the main point of him speaking on the 'It gets better' project is not to push a gay agenda, but to speak up as church against teen suicide, specifically amongst LGBT youth. Given our situations, we're tempted to say 'he's coming down on the pro-gay side', when in reality, he's coming down against the 'God hates fags' side. Or am I incorrect in thinking that most dissenters condemn overt violence against the LGBT community?
I would also like to clarify that I am not trying to insist that no one is troubled by the CWA actions or that those staying have fully made peace with them yet. I'm saying that they don't see it as church-dividing. Much in the way that we might be extremely troubled if we had a daughter in high school who comes home one day to tell us that she's 4 months pregnant by some boy she's already broken up with, but that's not automatically family-dividing.
Especially in the case of the church, it is shared trust in Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins that binds us together, or so the Augsburg Confession claims. That is what binds us, even though individual practices are different. For example, in Africa, they have a shortage of ordained ministers, and yet they get Word and Sacrament to the masses. And yet picture the uproar here if an unordained person wanted to perform the Sacrament, let alone actually attempt such a thing without having the express permission of the bishop. It's also what binds us to those in the LCMS, the Roman Church and the Orthodox, most of whom won't budge on closed communion and women's ordination, among other things, as a result of different teachings regarding both Law and Gospel. So in a way, you can't escape, short of abandoning Christianity. And even that, if Jonah and Romans is anything to go by, isn't a sure bet.
I will admit that I do not understand the importance of honor. Part of my lack of understanding is undoubtably the influence of the plethora of the literature, movies etc where a protagonist must choose between maintaining his honor and letting people die/suffer/etc as a consequence. Part of it also is that I don't see any room in the NT, particularly 1 Corinthians 8-9, for honor, but rather for surrendering our claim to honor to God that He may work redemption in us through Jesus Christ in the face of our conscience convicting us. Honor is also a word that I identify with the purity demanded of the Jews by God, which as a Lutheran I believe is not fully attainable. Instead, what honor we have is a gift from God to be used to further God's design, which is the proclamation of the Gospel.
I also have two comments on the Trinity. One is that "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" isn't properly describing persons either, but roles. We don't pray to "Father", but we assign the role of father to God. "Son" describes the relationship of Jesus to God. Likewise, "Holy Ghost/Spirit" is entirely descriptive. How many other spirits do we know? Is Luther's ghost holy? Would that make it a 'holy ghost'? If we were properly using names, it would have to be something like "Osiris, Horus and Isis", not that I intend to identify parts of the Egyptian pantheon with the Trinity. "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" are as easily names as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".
My second comment is that most of the Sophia formulations I have seen are worse than what you've described. They identify her with Christ, not the Holy Spirit, which is completely contrary to the Augsburg Confession so far as I can tell. The real irony will be when CORE and the dissenters are the ones who really bring new words for the Trinity and spread the Sophia-nonsense throughout the ELCA by making opposition to it their public stand.
just watch how divided a family can get
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
November 08, 2010 08:32
Peter:
A high school teenage daughter who becomes pregnant CAN be family dividing. By observing daughters of friends and acquaintances as well as my own experience with a daughter, it depends a great deal on the daughter’s repentance or defiance, humility or brazenness. Throw a daughter who insolently declares “it’s my life and I’m going to do what I what” (while “writing checks” she can’t cover) in the middle of the family and just watch how divided a family can get—especially one destructive drama after another.
Actually, Peter, a more apt comparison between the gravid girl and the ELCA is not a daughter who is “pregnant by some boy she's already broken up with” but a pregnant teenager who still insists on hanging out with the dirtbag. Guess what happens to a family then.
I cannot help but not in passing, Peter, that on the one hand you seem minimize to possibility that the ELCA would fiddle with the Trinity; but on the other hand you defend a heterodox naming of the Trinity. Not very reassuring.
This is the first time I’ve heard of the attempt to identify “Sophia” with Christ. But as I wrote, I am not wholly conversant with the whole “re-visioning” project and its many permutations. I am baffled by your claim that because CORE opposes this “Sophia nonsense” so strongly that it will be responsible for its proliferation within the ELCA. In any event, let’s hope nothing comes to any of this.
Finally, whether in the ELCA, the MSLC, the NALC, the Roman Catholic Church or the
Eastern Orthodox Church, Christ’s work will be done. One can “be as Christ” to a needing world in any one of these. But with ourselves as Christians, given our distances in worship and belief, it is best to live in different households. Or put another way, “good fences make good neighbors”. Once the NALC was established, one of the first acts its Bishop was to extend to Bishop Hanson an olive branch and the hope that both the ELCA and the NALC will find areas of cooperation and gemutlichkeit. Bishop Hanson’s initial response was somewhat tepid (I can hardly blame him); but I expect relations will warm up in the future.
Well, have a good BBQ, neighbor:
Mick Lee
A high school teenage daughter who becomes pregnant CAN be family dividing. By observing daughters of friends and acquaintances as well as my own experience with a daughter, it depends a great deal on the daughter’s repentance or defiance, humility or brazenness. Throw a daughter who insolently declares “it’s my life and I’m going to do what I what” (while “writing checks” she can’t cover) in the middle of the family and just watch how divided a family can get—especially one destructive drama after another.
Actually, Peter, a more apt comparison between the gravid girl and the ELCA is not a daughter who is “pregnant by some boy she's already broken up with” but a pregnant teenager who still insists on hanging out with the dirtbag. Guess what happens to a family then.
I cannot help but not in passing, Peter, that on the one hand you seem minimize to possibility that the ELCA would fiddle with the Trinity; but on the other hand you defend a heterodox naming of the Trinity. Not very reassuring.
This is the first time I’ve heard of the attempt to identify “Sophia” with Christ. But as I wrote, I am not wholly conversant with the whole “re-visioning” project and its many permutations. I am baffled by your claim that because CORE opposes this “Sophia nonsense” so strongly that it will be responsible for its proliferation within the ELCA. In any event, let’s hope nothing comes to any of this.
Finally, whether in the ELCA, the MSLC, the NALC, the Roman Catholic Church or the
Eastern Orthodox Church, Christ’s work will be done. One can “be as Christ” to a needing world in any one of these. But with ourselves as Christians, given our distances in worship and belief, it is best to live in different households. Or put another way, “good fences make good neighbors”. Once the NALC was established, one of the first acts its Bishop was to extend to Bishop Hanson an olive branch and the hope that both the ELCA and the NALC will find areas of cooperation and gemutlichkeit. Bishop Hanson’s initial response was somewhat tepid (I can hardly blame him); but I expect relations will warm up in the future.
Well, have a good BBQ, neighbor:
Mick Lee
that's exactly my point
Posted by
Peter
at
November 08, 2010 21:03
Mick,
That's actually my point about pregnant teen daughters, though your example of staying with the dirtbag works, too. Even if the teen daughter is defiant, that doesn't have to be a family-dividing issue. It certainly CAN become one, but it doesn't automatically become one. And with such a teen daughter, does throwing her out ever become right? Does it ever actually help anything other than a parent's pride? Certainly it is a hard and narrow road to walk between loving one's daughter yet not enabling the dirtbag, but one witness I have heard from dissenters is that hard and narrow aren't reasons to shy away from a road.
I don't believe that's a heterodox naming of the Trinity, though maybe we'll be having that discussion in more detail in the coming months. I prefer "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" myself, and I have yet to attend a worship service where that wasn't the formula, but I haven't heard any reasons why "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" is bad. Lack of naming persons is a bad reason as outlined above. So far as ecumenism is concerned, I see the biggest problem with the RC and Orthodox a refusal to accept justification by faith in Christ alone and only for salvation. If they can fully accept that, all of the other obstacles will melt away.
I think CORE is going to spread the Sophia stuff because it's going to make Trinity a big deal. First question the random church person will ask is 'why is it a big deal?', which will necessitate explaining the opposing side. Anyone who wants to get multiple perspectives on the issue (ie, what the opposing side has to say for itself) will then seek out groups like herchurch to see what it's about. That'll be better advertising than they currently have. As lines get drawn, it will force some people into defending some of the more outrageous claims and start them using it or parts more.
That's actually my point about pregnant teen daughters, though your example of staying with the dirtbag works, too. Even if the teen daughter is defiant, that doesn't have to be a family-dividing issue. It certainly CAN become one, but it doesn't automatically become one. And with such a teen daughter, does throwing her out ever become right? Does it ever actually help anything other than a parent's pride? Certainly it is a hard and narrow road to walk between loving one's daughter yet not enabling the dirtbag, but one witness I have heard from dissenters is that hard and narrow aren't reasons to shy away from a road.
I don't believe that's a heterodox naming of the Trinity, though maybe we'll be having that discussion in more detail in the coming months. I prefer "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" myself, and I have yet to attend a worship service where that wasn't the formula, but I haven't heard any reasons why "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" is bad. Lack of naming persons is a bad reason as outlined above. So far as ecumenism is concerned, I see the biggest problem with the RC and Orthodox a refusal to accept justification by faith in Christ alone and only for salvation. If they can fully accept that, all of the other obstacles will melt away.
I think CORE is going to spread the Sophia stuff because it's going to make Trinity a big deal. First question the random church person will ask is 'why is it a big deal?', which will necessitate explaining the opposing side. Anyone who wants to get multiple perspectives on the issue (ie, what the opposing side has to say for itself) will then seek out groups like herchurch to see what it's about. That'll be better advertising than they currently have. As lines get drawn, it will force some people into defending some of the more outrageous claims and start them using it or parts more.
The Trinity
Posted by
Gary
at
November 09, 2010 08:24
Peter,
Just a quick reason why you can't replace "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" with "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer." First, the actions of the latter formula are attributed to all three persons of the Trinity. Secondly, those actions do not describe the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, but the relationship of God to the world. Thus it is not a Triune name as it does not require three persons. "Father" is used to describe the creator of heaven and earth, who begot the Word before all worlds, of one being with the Father, through whom (the Son) all things were made. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father (and the Son? to the Son? between Father and Son? who knows...) is the giver of life, worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, who has spoken through the prophets. Interfering with the Triune name jeopardizes the doctrine of the Trinity, and in this latter formulation we have roles, not persons. If my memory serves, this is basically Modalism (properly called Sabellianism). The Triune name describes the persons of the Trinity in relationship to each other and secondarily to creation, not simply what God does for creation. Your critique regarding these being roles is interesting - but if I impregnate a woman, I am a father. That's an objective fact, a part of who I am, not a role I play. As a person, I myself am a son because I was born - that's who I am. As for the Holy Spirit, about whom we seem to know least, we know that the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father after the coming of the Son and that the Holy Spirit works in every age among humanity and speaking into the world - that's a function, but one that is distinct but not separate from the Father and the Son... So while the Triune name may be messy, it is the best thing we've got and I've heard no good alternatives. As above, if these seem like roles, look at how the Triune name is fleshed out in the Nicene Creed. Just something to chew on! Take care.
In Christ,
Gary
Just a quick reason why you can't replace "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" with "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer." First, the actions of the latter formula are attributed to all three persons of the Trinity. Secondly, those actions do not describe the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, but the relationship of God to the world. Thus it is not a Triune name as it does not require three persons. "Father" is used to describe the creator of heaven and earth, who begot the Word before all worlds, of one being with the Father, through whom (the Son) all things were made. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father (and the Son? to the Son? between Father and Son? who knows...) is the giver of life, worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, who has spoken through the prophets. Interfering with the Triune name jeopardizes the doctrine of the Trinity, and in this latter formulation we have roles, not persons. If my memory serves, this is basically Modalism (properly called Sabellianism). The Triune name describes the persons of the Trinity in relationship to each other and secondarily to creation, not simply what God does for creation. Your critique regarding these being roles is interesting - but if I impregnate a woman, I am a father. That's an objective fact, a part of who I am, not a role I play. As a person, I myself am a son because I was born - that's who I am. As for the Holy Spirit, about whom we seem to know least, we know that the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father after the coming of the Son and that the Holy Spirit works in every age among humanity and speaking into the world - that's a function, but one that is distinct but not separate from the Father and the Son... So while the Triune name may be messy, it is the best thing we've got and I've heard no good alternatives. As above, if these seem like roles, look at how the Triune name is fleshed out in the Nicene Creed. Just something to chew on! Take care.
In Christ,
Gary
Trinity
Posted by
Peter
at
November 09, 2010 22:13
Gary,
Thank you for the explanation. I agree that one weakness of 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' is that it doesn't explicitly lay out the relationship between the parts of Trinity. However, I think speaking of God in terms of God's relationship to us is a benefit of the above formulation. As you say, though, we have the Creeds to flesh out the Trinity. What about the Nicene Creed would actually be different if the above formula was directly substituted in place of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'?
I don't see how 'creator' is any less of an objective fact than being a father is. Also, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' can all just as easily refer to one person as well. For example, my father is simultaneously both a father and a son. Were he dead, I might be able to even describe him as a spirit. And if the Son is "eternally begotten of the Father", it means that the description of Mary as Mother is not sufficient, since she wasn't around for the initial begetting (and if the incarnation does warrant her being Mother, does that mean God wasn't "Father" until Christ's conception in Mary? If not, what was God prior to that?). Certainly old patriarchies may have viewed the male's work of begetting the most important aspect. But if you don't view the male's work as the most important, you can just as easily see creation as a female's work. Or even view trying to apply gender to God as something ultimately fruitless, in which case 'Father' is not an exact definition, but rather a role. Given how much gender and family roles have changed in the last 1700 years, I don't know we can say for certain 'Father' is the most correct way of describing that person of the Trinity.
'Holy Spirit' does not really describe the Spirit's relationship to the rest of the Trinity. We need the Nicene Creed to tell us exactly what it is, and really, if we were used to "Magickal Bain Sidhee", it would probably be as helpful.
But roles/relationships aside, how does "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" contradict justification by faith?
Thank you for the explanation. I agree that one weakness of 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' is that it doesn't explicitly lay out the relationship between the parts of Trinity. However, I think speaking of God in terms of God's relationship to us is a benefit of the above formulation. As you say, though, we have the Creeds to flesh out the Trinity. What about the Nicene Creed would actually be different if the above formula was directly substituted in place of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'?
I don't see how 'creator' is any less of an objective fact than being a father is. Also, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' can all just as easily refer to one person as well. For example, my father is simultaneously both a father and a son. Were he dead, I might be able to even describe him as a spirit. And if the Son is "eternally begotten of the Father", it means that the description of Mary as Mother is not sufficient, since she wasn't around for the initial begetting (and if the incarnation does warrant her being Mother, does that mean God wasn't "Father" until Christ's conception in Mary? If not, what was God prior to that?). Certainly old patriarchies may have viewed the male's work of begetting the most important aspect. But if you don't view the male's work as the most important, you can just as easily see creation as a female's work. Or even view trying to apply gender to God as something ultimately fruitless, in which case 'Father' is not an exact definition, but rather a role. Given how much gender and family roles have changed in the last 1700 years, I don't know we can say for certain 'Father' is the most correct way of describing that person of the Trinity.
'Holy Spirit' does not really describe the Spirit's relationship to the rest of the Trinity. We need the Nicene Creed to tell us exactly what it is, and really, if we were used to "Magickal Bain Sidhee", it would probably be as helpful.
But roles/relationships aside, how does "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" contradict justification by faith?
No Trinity, No Incarnation
Posted by
Gary
at
November 10, 2010 08:47
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your questions! I will try to give/point to some answers, but remember that you're dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity here - things are going to be messy by necessity.
First, let me point out that you said "one weakness of 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' is that it doesn't explicitly lay out the relationship between the parts of Trinity." Well that is exactly what makes it a non-Triune formula! God is all of these things to Creation, regardless of which person of the Trinity we speak of; but God is also three persons, and the above formulation does not express this and as such is not in any way the Triune Name.
Second, speaking of God's relationship to us is the task of Scripture and the Preacher - this is a fine thing to do and is what liturgy is all about. However, this is not a requirement of the Triune Name since the name of God must refer to Godself, since God is not dependent on Creation, or Redemption, or Sustaining the world for God's identity. God is dependent only on Godself, which is why a Triune Name which points to itself is so important.
Third, if we were to replace the names in the creed with these roles, the creed would read:
We believe in God, the Creator, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth and all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Redeemer of God, eternally begotten of the Creator: God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Creator. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Sustainer and the virgin Mary, and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again, in accordance with the scriptures. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Creator. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Sustainer, the Lord the giver of life, who proceeds from the Creator (and the Redeemer), who with the Creator and the Redeemer is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church, we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
As you see, the very roles we have substituted confuse the language of the creed greatly. It is no longer the Nicene Creed in any sense, because the changes we have wrought have brought in either a deletion of the three person or, more likely, tri-theism. And again, the relationship of the persons is not described in an understandable way.
Fourth, creator is less an objective fact about God's relationship to Godself. Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot refer to one person since you, Peter, could not be your own father and your own son in and of yourself. The description of Mary is sufficient: the incarnation happens in a specific place and time, in the birth and life and death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. The Son, begotten before all worlds, is described as the Word which became incarnate in the first chapter of John. But if that doesn't work for you, I tell you (I and not the Lord) that the incarnation works backwards and forwards throughout time and eternity; this is why Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. In other words, don't use our own limitations in space-time to tell us how God has to do things!
Fifth, regarding the continued description of the first person, the Father - again, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The first person begot the second, and the second person has a mother, the human being named Mary. This is the reason "Father" is used: it's the only parental language left. It's also a word Jesus used quite a bit. It has little to do with conception or gender, since God is described with feminine language very often. This is not a thesis that God has a penis, Peter, it is a statement that Jesus is the Son of God. In the Shack, to use an image, the first person of the Trinity is portrayed as an African-American female - but Jesus still calls her "Father". So it is a relational term - Father is who the first person is to the second, the Son. Your point about gender misses the point - the Father should never be called "he" or "she" but only "God" and "the Father of Jesus/the Son".
Sixth, Holy Spirit is what we have for language. The Spirit, like the Father, has no gender. The Spirit could be called the Paraklete, the Advocate, but the problem is this does not describe the Holy Spirit in relationship to Godself. As for your criticism that the term is unhelpful, Spirit does describe motion, life, inspiration, oneness, communion, communication, unity and all of these are relational. This is also the language we have from scripture. So as vague as the term may be, it is what we have from revelation and tradition - and you seem unable to provide a better alternative, which means it's what we should stick with.
Seventh, "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" does not finally imply or communicate the Trinitarian doctrine or name. As I'm sure you're aware, the doctrine of the Trinity grew out of the Christological controversy. Without the doctrine of the Trinity, the identity of Jesus is in question. This threatens the doctrine of the incarnation. Without the incarnate Christ, we have no justification or revelation. Changing the Triune Name goes far beyond justification and takes away everything we know of God. That is why this is so important.
I hope that all helped and welcome further questions. Be well and consider reading some early fathers like Augustine to continue learning about this vital point of orthodoxy.
In Christ,
Gary
Thanks for your questions! I will try to give/point to some answers, but remember that you're dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity here - things are going to be messy by necessity.
First, let me point out that you said "one weakness of 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' is that it doesn't explicitly lay out the relationship between the parts of Trinity." Well that is exactly what makes it a non-Triune formula! God is all of these things to Creation, regardless of which person of the Trinity we speak of; but God is also three persons, and the above formulation does not express this and as such is not in any way the Triune Name.
Second, speaking of God's relationship to us is the task of Scripture and the Preacher - this is a fine thing to do and is what liturgy is all about. However, this is not a requirement of the Triune Name since the name of God must refer to Godself, since God is not dependent on Creation, or Redemption, or Sustaining the world for God's identity. God is dependent only on Godself, which is why a Triune Name which points to itself is so important.
Third, if we were to replace the names in the creed with these roles, the creed would read:
We believe in God, the Creator, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth and all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Redeemer of God, eternally begotten of the Creator: God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Creator. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Sustainer and the virgin Mary, and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again, in accordance with the scriptures. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Creator. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Sustainer, the Lord the giver of life, who proceeds from the Creator (and the Redeemer), who with the Creator and the Redeemer is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church, we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
As you see, the very roles we have substituted confuse the language of the creed greatly. It is no longer the Nicene Creed in any sense, because the changes we have wrought have brought in either a deletion of the three person or, more likely, tri-theism. And again, the relationship of the persons is not described in an understandable way.
Fourth, creator is less an objective fact about God's relationship to Godself. Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot refer to one person since you, Peter, could not be your own father and your own son in and of yourself. The description of Mary is sufficient: the incarnation happens in a specific place and time, in the birth and life and death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. The Son, begotten before all worlds, is described as the Word which became incarnate in the first chapter of John. But if that doesn't work for you, I tell you (I and not the Lord) that the incarnation works backwards and forwards throughout time and eternity; this is why Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. In other words, don't use our own limitations in space-time to tell us how God has to do things!
Fifth, regarding the continued description of the first person, the Father - again, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The first person begot the second, and the second person has a mother, the human being named Mary. This is the reason "Father" is used: it's the only parental language left. It's also a word Jesus used quite a bit. It has little to do with conception or gender, since God is described with feminine language very often. This is not a thesis that God has a penis, Peter, it is a statement that Jesus is the Son of God. In the Shack, to use an image, the first person of the Trinity is portrayed as an African-American female - but Jesus still calls her "Father". So it is a relational term - Father is who the first person is to the second, the Son. Your point about gender misses the point - the Father should never be called "he" or "she" but only "God" and "the Father of Jesus/the Son".
Sixth, Holy Spirit is what we have for language. The Spirit, like the Father, has no gender. The Spirit could be called the Paraklete, the Advocate, but the problem is this does not describe the Holy Spirit in relationship to Godself. As for your criticism that the term is unhelpful, Spirit does describe motion, life, inspiration, oneness, communion, communication, unity and all of these are relational. This is also the language we have from scripture. So as vague as the term may be, it is what we have from revelation and tradition - and you seem unable to provide a better alternative, which means it's what we should stick with.
Seventh, "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" does not finally imply or communicate the Trinitarian doctrine or name. As I'm sure you're aware, the doctrine of the Trinity grew out of the Christological controversy. Without the doctrine of the Trinity, the identity of Jesus is in question. This threatens the doctrine of the incarnation. Without the incarnate Christ, we have no justification or revelation. Changing the Triune Name goes far beyond justification and takes away everything we know of God. That is why this is so important.
I hope that all helped and welcome further questions. Be well and consider reading some early fathers like Augustine to continue learning about this vital point of orthodoxy.
In Christ,
Gary
Christ was divine long before Nicea
Posted by
Peter
at
November 13, 2010 20:49
Gary,
From what you say, though, it sounds like "Parent, Child and Paraklete" would answer your objections and actually fit even better.
Specifically, your contention that the Father has no gender is muddied by the very use of the term "Father". It's not just Parent, which is our genderless word for that relationship, but a male parent and traditionally the one in charge. So long as we call male parents "fathers", the term will always carry the gender role and patriarchal language with it. The father-son relationship is not automatically the same as a mother-son relationship and a distinct subset of parent-son relationships. I think the danger of confusing the first person of the Trinity with Mary is far less than the danger of reinforcing the belief that the first person of the Trinity must relate as a male parent. Gender is also very important because it is specifically the use of gendered language for God to which those who would rename the Trinity are sensitive about.
Reading the Creed with "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" didn't seem all that confusing to me. Creator would also include the relationship between the first two persons of the Trinity as well, especially with the Nicene Creed clarifying "begotten, not made". Redeemer doesn't initially seem to fit the relational end, but it does put the spotlight on why we need a Trinity in the first place. I think it does nail God's identity in one word better than most. Creation isn't necessary for God's identity, but how God interacts with creation is a vital aspect of God's identity. Affirming that God is a Redeemer not only counters the atheists who reject God on the grounds that God is a bloodthirsty tyrant but proclaims how God interacts with His creation. The rest of the Second Article clarifies how God's redemptive work is connected both to us and to God's creative work. "Sustainer" conveys "motion, life, inspiration, oneness, communion, communication, unity and all of these are relational" even better than the nebulous "Ghost/Spirit". As to being Scriptural, the Sophia folks do have some ground here as well, and Paraklete/Advocate are not inherently synonymous with spirit. "Breath of God" might be even better, or "Holy Breath". That would have the added bonus of halitosis jokes.
I think I also disagree with you on the justification end for two reasons. One is that the Trinitarian formula wasn't decided until several hundred years after Christ's death and resurrection and yet the early Christians knew everything they needed to about God. As I see it, justification gives us everything we need to know about God. All the rest of Christian doctrine describes how justification impacts on various aspects of the church, life, God, etc, 28 of which are laid out in the Augsburg Confession. As such, the Trinitarian formula is necessary insofar as it allows us to explain God in light of God's Gospel promise. There are also a number of heresies that denied some/all aspects of the Trinitarian formula, yet still asserted that Christ was partially/completely necessary for salvation. The issue with the Arians, for example, wasn't "was Jesus the Son of God", but "was Jesus inferior to God", which isn't actually solved by the description of the relationship as Father-Son.
From what you say, though, it sounds like "Parent, Child and Paraklete" would answer your objections and actually fit even better.
Specifically, your contention that the Father has no gender is muddied by the very use of the term "Father". It's not just Parent, which is our genderless word for that relationship, but a male parent and traditionally the one in charge. So long as we call male parents "fathers", the term will always carry the gender role and patriarchal language with it. The father-son relationship is not automatically the same as a mother-son relationship and a distinct subset of parent-son relationships. I think the danger of confusing the first person of the Trinity with Mary is far less than the danger of reinforcing the belief that the first person of the Trinity must relate as a male parent. Gender is also very important because it is specifically the use of gendered language for God to which those who would rename the Trinity are sensitive about.
Reading the Creed with "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" didn't seem all that confusing to me. Creator would also include the relationship between the first two persons of the Trinity as well, especially with the Nicene Creed clarifying "begotten, not made". Redeemer doesn't initially seem to fit the relational end, but it does put the spotlight on why we need a Trinity in the first place. I think it does nail God's identity in one word better than most. Creation isn't necessary for God's identity, but how God interacts with creation is a vital aspect of God's identity. Affirming that God is a Redeemer not only counters the atheists who reject God on the grounds that God is a bloodthirsty tyrant but proclaims how God interacts with His creation. The rest of the Second Article clarifies how God's redemptive work is connected both to us and to God's creative work. "Sustainer" conveys "motion, life, inspiration, oneness, communion, communication, unity and all of these are relational" even better than the nebulous "Ghost/Spirit". As to being Scriptural, the Sophia folks do have some ground here as well, and Paraklete/Advocate are not inherently synonymous with spirit. "Breath of God" might be even better, or "Holy Breath". That would have the added bonus of halitosis jokes.
I think I also disagree with you on the justification end for two reasons. One is that the Trinitarian formula wasn't decided until several hundred years after Christ's death and resurrection and yet the early Christians knew everything they needed to about God. As I see it, justification gives us everything we need to know about God. All the rest of Christian doctrine describes how justification impacts on various aspects of the church, life, God, etc, 28 of which are laid out in the Augsburg Confession. As such, the Trinitarian formula is necessary insofar as it allows us to explain God in light of God's Gospel promise. There are also a number of heresies that denied some/all aspects of the Trinitarian formula, yet still asserted that Christ was partially/completely necessary for salvation. The issue with the Arians, for example, wasn't "was Jesus the Son of God", but "was Jesus inferior to God", which isn't actually solved by the description of the relationship as Father-Son.
Five Topics
Posted by
Gary
at
November 15, 2010 08:28
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your challenges! I remind you again that this is muddy territory – Trinitarian theology is heinously complex, and none of my points are from any official source but just from me. Some contemplation of Paul, Augustine, and Luther would be most apropos here. However, I will do my best to respond to your concerns.
1. On Father – That the Father is not gendered cannot be muddled by the gendered language, since all language for God is male or female in scripture (and sometimes plural!) – to insist this implies a lack of scriptural understanding. If someone walks up to me and claims that God has a penis due to this gendered language, I can shoot back that God clearly has breasts as well. Gendering God does not work in the realm of serious Christian dialogue. However, people are gendered – we don’t have persons without that. Hence the gendered nature of the term “Father” is appropriate as the name of the first person of the Trinity. And the first person of the Trinity, within the symbols we have in scripture, must relate as male parent (Jesus always uses “Father” and never “Mother”) because the second person of the Trinity is born of a woman.
2. On Mary – I feel that you underestimate the danger of Maryology being unrestrained by the doctrine of the Trinity. Have you never encountered the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix? Keeping the humanity of Mary is vital to the incarnation. Keeping the divinity of the Father of Jesus is as vital. Hence, because we have no other paradigm to point to, we call the first person of the Trinity God the Father. There is no other possible label for the relationship to the Son.
3. On the Creed – That you did not find the altered Creed confusing astounds me, in light of such lines as “Jesus Christ, God’s only Redeemer, our Lord” which either makes Christ the Savior who saves God, or fails to describe how Christ is related to God. Creator also doesn’t work, since God does not create the Son (begotten, not made). Redeemer does not show why we need a Trinity – we need a Trinity because that’s who God is! God is relational in and of God’s self. Sustainer, again, is not a title that can be applied only to one person of the Trinity, since the sustaining of creation is an act of the entire Godhead. As for “Holy Breath”, this is actually the same as the Greek meaning, which means both Spirit/Ghost and Breath. So you’re just arguing over translation there. I don’t have any particular objection to Sophia, but I’m not sure how scriptural the identification of the Spirit with Wisdom would be – there would need to be a lot of scholarship on that point, and the question becomes how using that reveals rather than obscures the identity of the third person and thereby the Trinity.
4. On Gnosis – Your statement that “justification gives us everything we need to know about God” is disturbing to me. Justification is something God does, whether or not we know about it; it is something that is made know to us in revelation. The gospel is proclaimed partially as justification, but this is not really something we “need to know”. The gospel of Christ crucified and risen is dependent upon and the source of Triune doctrine, which itself is the source of justification. Without a God who is Triune, we have no incarnation and thus no justification. Your argument that early Christians knew everything they needed to know about God ignores the massive debates that occurred in the early church. Witness the letters of Paul, who tries to clarify the actions of God, of Jesus, and of the Spirit. And in these earliest Christian documents we clearly have a proto-Triune idea beginning to form. In addition, saying “it was good enough for them” makes no bones – they also didn’t have toilet paper, but try convincing the ELCA it should stop using toilet paper for that reason! Once knowledge of God is revealed, it is irresponsible to ignore or cover up. And, so far as I can tell, here you are arguing that the Creed is only necessary insofar as it proclaims justification. The opposite is the case – the Creed proclaims justification as a result of God’s revealed Triune identity.
5. On Heresy – Non-Triune understandings of scripture are called heretical for a reason. You speak of the Church as though it were a result of justification and not the body which holds the means of justification. You speak of an understanding of Christ as necessary for salvation, but to speak of a non-divine Jesus or of a Jesus who is not Son of his Father is not to speak of Jesus Christ but someone/something else that is not revealed in scripture. And the Trinitarian Name is not designed to undo all heresy, since heresies originated after the formulation of the Triune Name but before the Creed. This is why the Creed was written – to clarify what we mean when we write or say “God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Violation of the Creed is abdication of the Nicene tradition and takes us back to the Arian controversy – which calls into question the identity of Christ. This is to jeopardize the proclamation of the gospel and thereby justification.
I hope that gives you a few things to meditate on. Take care of yourself!
In Christ,
Gary
Thanks for your challenges! I remind you again that this is muddy territory – Trinitarian theology is heinously complex, and none of my points are from any official source but just from me. Some contemplation of Paul, Augustine, and Luther would be most apropos here. However, I will do my best to respond to your concerns.
1. On Father – That the Father is not gendered cannot be muddled by the gendered language, since all language for God is male or female in scripture (and sometimes plural!) – to insist this implies a lack of scriptural understanding. If someone walks up to me and claims that God has a penis due to this gendered language, I can shoot back that God clearly has breasts as well. Gendering God does not work in the realm of serious Christian dialogue. However, people are gendered – we don’t have persons without that. Hence the gendered nature of the term “Father” is appropriate as the name of the first person of the Trinity. And the first person of the Trinity, within the symbols we have in scripture, must relate as male parent (Jesus always uses “Father” and never “Mother”) because the second person of the Trinity is born of a woman.
2. On Mary – I feel that you underestimate the danger of Maryology being unrestrained by the doctrine of the Trinity. Have you never encountered the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix? Keeping the humanity of Mary is vital to the incarnation. Keeping the divinity of the Father of Jesus is as vital. Hence, because we have no other paradigm to point to, we call the first person of the Trinity God the Father. There is no other possible label for the relationship to the Son.
3. On the Creed – That you did not find the altered Creed confusing astounds me, in light of such lines as “Jesus Christ, God’s only Redeemer, our Lord” which either makes Christ the Savior who saves God, or fails to describe how Christ is related to God. Creator also doesn’t work, since God does not create the Son (begotten, not made). Redeemer does not show why we need a Trinity – we need a Trinity because that’s who God is! God is relational in and of God’s self. Sustainer, again, is not a title that can be applied only to one person of the Trinity, since the sustaining of creation is an act of the entire Godhead. As for “Holy Breath”, this is actually the same as the Greek meaning, which means both Spirit/Ghost and Breath. So you’re just arguing over translation there. I don’t have any particular objection to Sophia, but I’m not sure how scriptural the identification of the Spirit with Wisdom would be – there would need to be a lot of scholarship on that point, and the question becomes how using that reveals rather than obscures the identity of the third person and thereby the Trinity.
4. On Gnosis – Your statement that “justification gives us everything we need to know about God” is disturbing to me. Justification is something God does, whether or not we know about it; it is something that is made know to us in revelation. The gospel is proclaimed partially as justification, but this is not really something we “need to know”. The gospel of Christ crucified and risen is dependent upon and the source of Triune doctrine, which itself is the source of justification. Without a God who is Triune, we have no incarnation and thus no justification. Your argument that early Christians knew everything they needed to know about God ignores the massive debates that occurred in the early church. Witness the letters of Paul, who tries to clarify the actions of God, of Jesus, and of the Spirit. And in these earliest Christian documents we clearly have a proto-Triune idea beginning to form. In addition, saying “it was good enough for them” makes no bones – they also didn’t have toilet paper, but try convincing the ELCA it should stop using toilet paper for that reason! Once knowledge of God is revealed, it is irresponsible to ignore or cover up. And, so far as I can tell, here you are arguing that the Creed is only necessary insofar as it proclaims justification. The opposite is the case – the Creed proclaims justification as a result of God’s revealed Triune identity.
5. On Heresy – Non-Triune understandings of scripture are called heretical for a reason. You speak of the Church as though it were a result of justification and not the body which holds the means of justification. You speak of an understanding of Christ as necessary for salvation, but to speak of a non-divine Jesus or of a Jesus who is not Son of his Father is not to speak of Jesus Christ but someone/something else that is not revealed in scripture. And the Trinitarian Name is not designed to undo all heresy, since heresies originated after the formulation of the Triune Name but before the Creed. This is why the Creed was written – to clarify what we mean when we write or say “God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Violation of the Creed is abdication of the Nicene tradition and takes us back to the Arian controversy – which calls into question the identity of Christ. This is to jeopardize the proclamation of the gospel and thereby justification.
I hope that gives you a few things to meditate on. Take care of yourself!
In Christ,
Gary
Justification is THE article of Christian faith
Posted by
Peter
at
November 18, 2010 22:38
1. I don't think this answer successfully refutes "Parent" or "Child" as formulations for the first and second persons, respectively. As other comments here demonstrate, "Father" is always gendered language, no matter how much we may not want it to be. "Parent" solves that problem pretty nicely. Also, is that link you posted to the other response the exhaustive list of descriptions of God as a woman? With one exception (the Deutoronomy one), those were all simile and metaphor and not directly descriptive of the first person of the Trinity.
2. I will agree that I see Mariolatry as largely a Catholic phenomenon, and as such not a serious danger for Lutherans or most Christians. Part of the reason is that I don't need the Trinity to restrain it; that follows from justification in faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for the forgiveness of sins.
3. I would read "God's only Redeemer" as the only Redeemer sent by God. As an aside, Dorothee Soelle has some interesting ideas about God's needs for us, but I'm not sure I really buy them. Also, begetting is an act of creation, if anything THE act of creation with which most people are familiar. I'll address Redeemer below.
4. "To know" was perhaps a poor choice of words. I don't mean "knowing God" in the secret wisdom sense, I mean "knowing God" in the direct experience of God's life-saving gift of grace as mediated through Jesus Christ. Not just head-knowledge, but receiving the Gospel promise through faith. I do think justification by faith underlies the Creed, and not vice versa, even aside from the fact that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions largely miss justification by faith. I agree with Luther about justification by faith in that "if this article stands, the Church stands; if it falls, the Church falls." The Trinitarian nature of God is entirely irrelevant unless it pertains to our judgment before God. And that judgment before God is directly answered by the doctrine of justification. Part of the disagreement may be over knowledge of God and the Law. I don't believe there is any knowledge of God that is purely informational. Either that would put God into the realm of the testable, or it would be gnosis, except gnosis that doesn't convey anything of substance, at which point is ceases to be gnosis. I believe all knowledge of God directly relates to our judgment before Him. The bad news is our failure to fulfill the Law. The Good News is how God fixes that through the Gospel.
5. The problem with a non-divine Jesus is that he couldn't possibly save us. If Jesus is not related to the first person of the Trinity, the first person of the Trinity is an alternate deity. The point that the early Christians got by without a Trinity is to specifically show that it is not the Creed that saves. They had the life-saving faith and even transmitted it throughout the Roman Empire without the Nicene Creed. Yes, there were arguments about that faith, just as there were afterwards and are again now. Those arguments all come back to different ideas about justification, though. The problem with your toilet paper argument is that salvation is not a comfort; it is literally being pulled from the jaws of death. If Trinity is as dispensable as toilet paper, there wouldn't be as huge an uproar over it. All the talk of Trinity and God has to serve one purpose-- connecting sinners to God's saving action in Jesus Christ. If it's not necessary to talk about Trinity for that salvation, then the whole Trinitarian concept itself is up for grabs. And if the Creed is only a clarification of the words (symbols) we use to represent three persons of God, why not suppose there are other ways to clarify those symbols, or even choose different symbols to represent the same Triune God?
2. I will agree that I see Mariolatry as largely a Catholic phenomenon, and as such not a serious danger for Lutherans or most Christians. Part of the reason is that I don't need the Trinity to restrain it; that follows from justification in faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for the forgiveness of sins.
3. I would read "God's only Redeemer" as the only Redeemer sent by God. As an aside, Dorothee Soelle has some interesting ideas about God's needs for us, but I'm not sure I really buy them. Also, begetting is an act of creation, if anything THE act of creation with which most people are familiar. I'll address Redeemer below.
4. "To know" was perhaps a poor choice of words. I don't mean "knowing God" in the secret wisdom sense, I mean "knowing God" in the direct experience of God's life-saving gift of grace as mediated through Jesus Christ. Not just head-knowledge, but receiving the Gospel promise through faith. I do think justification by faith underlies the Creed, and not vice versa, even aside from the fact that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions largely miss justification by faith. I agree with Luther about justification by faith in that "if this article stands, the Church stands; if it falls, the Church falls." The Trinitarian nature of God is entirely irrelevant unless it pertains to our judgment before God. And that judgment before God is directly answered by the doctrine of justification. Part of the disagreement may be over knowledge of God and the Law. I don't believe there is any knowledge of God that is purely informational. Either that would put God into the realm of the testable, or it would be gnosis, except gnosis that doesn't convey anything of substance, at which point is ceases to be gnosis. I believe all knowledge of God directly relates to our judgment before Him. The bad news is our failure to fulfill the Law. The Good News is how God fixes that through the Gospel.
5. The problem with a non-divine Jesus is that he couldn't possibly save us. If Jesus is not related to the first person of the Trinity, the first person of the Trinity is an alternate deity. The point that the early Christians got by without a Trinity is to specifically show that it is not the Creed that saves. They had the life-saving faith and even transmitted it throughout the Roman Empire without the Nicene Creed. Yes, there were arguments about that faith, just as there were afterwards and are again now. Those arguments all come back to different ideas about justification, though. The problem with your toilet paper argument is that salvation is not a comfort; it is literally being pulled from the jaws of death. If Trinity is as dispensable as toilet paper, there wouldn't be as huge an uproar over it. All the talk of Trinity and God has to serve one purpose-- connecting sinners to God's saving action in Jesus Christ. If it's not necessary to talk about Trinity for that salvation, then the whole Trinitarian concept itself is up for grabs. And if the Creed is only a clarification of the words (symbols) we use to represent three persons of God, why not suppose there are other ways to clarify those symbols, or even choose different symbols to represent the same Triune God?
Justification is a gift of God
Posted by
Gary
at
November 19, 2010 02:52
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the response. Here's some thoughts.
1. As other comments here show, "Parent" does not solve the problem of gendered language but simply begs the question of gender. If you say, "I'm going home to visit my parent," any person on the street would want to know if you referred to your mother or father. As for Son, Jesus was male - therefore is male - so gender-neutral language is not particularly appropriate there. All language for God is simile and metaphor, by the way - but the Triune Name is clung to because it represents orthodox understanding of the Trinity as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.
2. Perhaps this is part of the problem: you see Christ's action as working off of the principle of justification (as the telos of the incarnation, perhaps?) but I see justification as the effect received by grace through faith when the Good News of Christ crucified is preached. So for me, justification is dependent on Jesus and therefore the Trinity; you seem to have this the other way round.
3. You would read a phrase a certain way, but that does not make the language clear. God does not have need of us, though God always seeks us and refuses to be God without us (I've not read Soelle). Begetting is NOT creation, as in "begotten not made". Be careful - if Jesus is created by God, then Jesus is a created being and ceases to be "of one being with the Father".
4. I'm a bit confused by this part. Why are we talking about "knowledge" of God at all? All that is known of God is in the revelation of Christ - and no more. As for Roman Catholics missing justification, it would probably be more accurate to say that this teaching has been systematized to death, but I don't know enough about RC theology to press this point. Justification by grace through faith is, however, not only held by the Lutheran denominations. But, again, the Trinitarian nature of God... IS the nature of God. God saves us because of God's nature. You're making a distinction where none exists - the Creed is a summary of the Good News, after all!
5. Of course it is not the Creed that saves, it is God in Christ! However, the tradition and/or relationship revealed through the Holy Spirit should not be cast away. What I meant by the toilet paper analogy is that simply saying that the early Church didn't have it does not mean we don't need it. But again, there was even then a movement towards creedal formulations. The early Church also had martyrs being torn apart by lions - I assume you are not seriously trying to compare our context to theirs. As for symbols, there are other ways to clarify the Triune Name and to represent the Triune Name (perhaps), but symbols have meaning within context. No symbol has the same meaning as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in the context of the Church. None. Period. El finito.
I hope this helps. Take care!
In Christ,
Gary
Thanks for the response. Here's some thoughts.
1. As other comments here show, "Parent" does not solve the problem of gendered language but simply begs the question of gender. If you say, "I'm going home to visit my parent," any person on the street would want to know if you referred to your mother or father. As for Son, Jesus was male - therefore is male - so gender-neutral language is not particularly appropriate there. All language for God is simile and metaphor, by the way - but the Triune Name is clung to because it represents orthodox understanding of the Trinity as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.
2. Perhaps this is part of the problem: you see Christ's action as working off of the principle of justification (as the telos of the incarnation, perhaps?) but I see justification as the effect received by grace through faith when the Good News of Christ crucified is preached. So for me, justification is dependent on Jesus and therefore the Trinity; you seem to have this the other way round.
3. You would read a phrase a certain way, but that does not make the language clear. God does not have need of us, though God always seeks us and refuses to be God without us (I've not read Soelle). Begetting is NOT creation, as in "begotten not made". Be careful - if Jesus is created by God, then Jesus is a created being and ceases to be "of one being with the Father".
4. I'm a bit confused by this part. Why are we talking about "knowledge" of God at all? All that is known of God is in the revelation of Christ - and no more. As for Roman Catholics missing justification, it would probably be more accurate to say that this teaching has been systematized to death, but I don't know enough about RC theology to press this point. Justification by grace through faith is, however, not only held by the Lutheran denominations. But, again, the Trinitarian nature of God... IS the nature of God. God saves us because of God's nature. You're making a distinction where none exists - the Creed is a summary of the Good News, after all!
5. Of course it is not the Creed that saves, it is God in Christ! However, the tradition and/or relationship revealed through the Holy Spirit should not be cast away. What I meant by the toilet paper analogy is that simply saying that the early Church didn't have it does not mean we don't need it. But again, there was even then a movement towards creedal formulations. The early Church also had martyrs being torn apart by lions - I assume you are not seriously trying to compare our context to theirs. As for symbols, there are other ways to clarify the Triune Name and to represent the Triune Name (perhaps), but symbols have meaning within context. No symbol has the same meaning as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in the context of the Church. None. Period. El finito.
I hope this helps. Take care!
In Christ,
Gary
Justification
Posted by
Gary
at
November 19, 2010 02:55
Peter,
Something I forgot to say. Justification comes from God. But when we are given faith through grace by the Holy Spirit, it is NOT faith in justification. That is why the articles of the Creed are so important - because faith MUST be faith in God. Justification is a gift, a promise, a working - but it must be from God. Faith must be in God. This is VERY important. I feel that this is what is at stake here. I hope that clarifies what I'm trying to get at.
In Christ,
Gary
Something I forgot to say. Justification comes from God. But when we are given faith through grace by the Holy Spirit, it is NOT faith in justification. That is why the articles of the Creed are so important - because faith MUST be faith in God. Justification is a gift, a promise, a working - but it must be from God. Faith must be in God. This is VERY important. I feel that this is what is at stake here. I hope that clarifies what I'm trying to get at.
In Christ,
Gary
justification
Posted by
Peter
at
November 21, 2010 18:43
Gary,
Thanks for your response. I agree that justification and faith may be where the disagreement is. I agree that justification itself is a gift from God, received through faith. The doctrine of justification, though, is the "article on which the Church stands or falls". As I understand it, the doctrine of justification is outlined in AC4. It is that God promises to forgive sins on account of Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only. Faith is not a conviction that God exists (note Jews, Muslims) or even a conviction that we know the true nature of God. Faith is trust that God's promise of forgiveness through Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only is for us.
All of our doctrines, books, etc, have the sole goal of connecting sinners to Christ through this promise. That's why the early church is a relevant example here. It shows that there is a way for sinners to be connected to Christ independent of the Triune Creedal language. Today, I agree that the traditional words for Trinity: "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" do have a lot of power for most people. However, for those to whom the patriarchal language is only understood as a language of death, new words are needed.
I'm still not entirely convinced that Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer doesn't work, but I do believe we can find better words to achieve both objectives. (I will concede that there is some danger of coming out of the Creed without a preexistent Christ, but I think that's a lot harder if you come from the doctrine of justification, as Christ's divinity follows from that). I do think "Parent, Son/Child and Holy Spirit" does still work. Especially in this age of single-parent families (not to mention all the stickiness of gender ambiguous parents), I don't think "Parent" begs the question of which one. I think it moves past gender to 'familial authority figure'. Son is more precise, but Child still successfully describes the relationship.
Thanks for your response. I agree that justification and faith may be where the disagreement is. I agree that justification itself is a gift from God, received through faith. The doctrine of justification, though, is the "article on which the Church stands or falls". As I understand it, the doctrine of justification is outlined in AC4. It is that God promises to forgive sins on account of Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only. Faith is not a conviction that God exists (note Jews, Muslims) or even a conviction that we know the true nature of God. Faith is trust that God's promise of forgiveness through Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only is for us.
All of our doctrines, books, etc, have the sole goal of connecting sinners to Christ through this promise. That's why the early church is a relevant example here. It shows that there is a way for sinners to be connected to Christ independent of the Triune Creedal language. Today, I agree that the traditional words for Trinity: "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" do have a lot of power for most people. However, for those to whom the patriarchal language is only understood as a language of death, new words are needed.
I'm still not entirely convinced that Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer doesn't work, but I do believe we can find better words to achieve both objectives. (I will concede that there is some danger of coming out of the Creed without a preexistent Christ, but I think that's a lot harder if you come from the doctrine of justification, as Christ's divinity follows from that). I do think "Parent, Son/Child and Holy Spirit" does still work. Especially in this age of single-parent families (not to mention all the stickiness of gender ambiguous parents), I don't think "Parent" begs the question of which one. I think it moves past gender to 'familial authority figure'. Son is more precise, but Child still successfully describes the relationship.
brief comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 21, 2010 19:12
Just to add my two cents here:
We know God as Father not because of some intrinsic understanding of parental relationship aka Father. We know God to be our Father because Jesus calls God his Father and teaches us in the Our Father to call on God that way. How that squares with changing the language of the Trinity is not a problem for me. It becomes a problem when we focus away from Christ's teachings and instead try to deal with the language problem using sociological or psychological terms alien to theological methodology.
We know God as Father not because of some intrinsic understanding of parental relationship aka Father. We know God to be our Father because Jesus calls God his Father and teaches us in the Our Father to call on God that way. How that squares with changing the language of the Trinity is not a problem for me. It becomes a problem when we focus away from Christ's teachings and instead try to deal with the language problem using sociological or psychological terms alien to theological methodology.
Relationship
Posted by
Gary
at
November 22, 2010 08:52
Dear readselerttoo,
Your point might be valid, but frankly the Christologies of the gospels are complicated enough that the exegetical conclusion you are positing is suspect at best. The conclusion you posit and the evidence you use might be perfectly adequate for you, but not for me. As for terms alien to theological methodology, I posit that there are no relational terms which are alien to theology since theology is ultimately about relationships. Additionally theology by definition must use the available vocabulary of the period in which it is done, hence sociological and psychological terms. These terms are key to the theology of pastoral care and congregational ministry; why should they not be used in discussions of the Trinity?
Yours in Christ,
Gary
Your point might be valid, but frankly the Christologies of the gospels are complicated enough that the exegetical conclusion you are positing is suspect at best. The conclusion you posit and the evidence you use might be perfectly adequate for you, but not for me. As for terms alien to theological methodology, I posit that there are no relational terms which are alien to theology since theology is ultimately about relationships. Additionally theology by definition must use the available vocabulary of the period in which it is done, hence sociological and psychological terms. These terms are key to the theology of pastoral care and congregational ministry; why should they not be used in discussions of the Trinity?
Yours in Christ,
Gary
brief and limited comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 22, 2010 10:25
By mixing psycho-social terminology with the biblical/theological terms is to relativize the distinct and unique quality that theological terminology offers. Preservation of theological terms and methods can be used as inroads to mission. For example in talking with a skeptic who may or may not be baptized, it is important to find theological terminology which works to enhance conversation rather than to "shut the door". St. Paul was able to do this on Mars Hill when talking with "unbelievers". What that means is that instead of using terms which could compromises on the Gospel's message by relativizing its "agenda" St. Paul found common terms talking about God as common Creator (sort of like how I would imagine talking with a Muslim) but also pastorally suggesting that the "unbelievers" way of faith was not helpful for them in terms of finding the true God. St. Paul is a model in how to do mission specifically in the arena of how he developed relational terms which did not come from the culture but instead came from reflection on the Gospel and yet may have been "heard" by his audience.
Gender
Posted by
Gary
at
November 22, 2010 09:07
Dear Peter,
Perhaps I haven't been clear, but what I'm trying to do here is not to make things work or not for you. I'm trying to underline the reasons that changing the Triune Name would be problematic. I understand that many of these are not issues for you, but clear communication of the gospel might hinge on things that you assume via your education in Christian doctrine. Additionally, I don't think you can claim Christ's divinity follows from the doctrine of justification at least in the forensic sense, since the question becomes about the redemptive work of the cross at that juncture. Resurrection is not predicated on divinity in the biblical narrative, but only on the work of the divine. I still feel that the Triune Name safeguards a Chalcedonian Christology in a way that your gender-neutral proposal does not. As for patriarchal language as a language of death, I am not certain what that means - but I will say that the Church is called to be with people in their brokenness and in their encounters with death in the world, rather than doing everything in its power to avoid offending people. In short, while I understand that your goal here is comfort, I wonder at the method. Is this really such a gigantic thorn in the side of people, and if so is it really the language - "Father", "Son" - or is it something that is assumed to underlie that language? Is it, for example, a concept of penal substitutionary atonement? Is it a confusion about the persons of the Trinity? Is it the idea of God as male? Is it the idea of God being born? In other words, if someone asked me in a congregation why we had these gendered terms, I would want to know why that question is being asked. In other words, it's starting to sound like an issue of pastoral care and not of theology.
As for your last paragraph, as outlined above, Parent must beg the question of which one unless you leave out Mary which denies the incarnation. If you see a woman walking down the street, with a child, you do not wonder about the other "parent" but about the "father" of the child, since on a genetic level that is what is required (yes, even today). Ergo, we are still using a gendered language since we have gendered people (Mary and Jesus) in the mix. In this sense we need a gendered term to clearly distinguish God the Father from Mary while enforcing a parental relationship. And your position that Child describes the relationship assumes a context in which gender and sexuality does not define relationships - and I would argue that even were this true for the Godhead, it is not true for those who hear and say this Name.
In Christ,
Gary
Perhaps I haven't been clear, but what I'm trying to do here is not to make things work or not for you. I'm trying to underline the reasons that changing the Triune Name would be problematic. I understand that many of these are not issues for you, but clear communication of the gospel might hinge on things that you assume via your education in Christian doctrine. Additionally, I don't think you can claim Christ's divinity follows from the doctrine of justification at least in the forensic sense, since the question becomes about the redemptive work of the cross at that juncture. Resurrection is not predicated on divinity in the biblical narrative, but only on the work of the divine. I still feel that the Triune Name safeguards a Chalcedonian Christology in a way that your gender-neutral proposal does not. As for patriarchal language as a language of death, I am not certain what that means - but I will say that the Church is called to be with people in their brokenness and in their encounters with death in the world, rather than doing everything in its power to avoid offending people. In short, while I understand that your goal here is comfort, I wonder at the method. Is this really such a gigantic thorn in the side of people, and if so is it really the language - "Father", "Son" - or is it something that is assumed to underlie that language? Is it, for example, a concept of penal substitutionary atonement? Is it a confusion about the persons of the Trinity? Is it the idea of God as male? Is it the idea of God being born? In other words, if someone asked me in a congregation why we had these gendered terms, I would want to know why that question is being asked. In other words, it's starting to sound like an issue of pastoral care and not of theology.
As for your last paragraph, as outlined above, Parent must beg the question of which one unless you leave out Mary which denies the incarnation. If you see a woman walking down the street, with a child, you do not wonder about the other "parent" but about the "father" of the child, since on a genetic level that is what is required (yes, even today). Ergo, we are still using a gendered language since we have gendered people (Mary and Jesus) in the mix. In this sense we need a gendered term to clearly distinguish God the Father from Mary while enforcing a parental relationship. And your position that Child describes the relationship assumes a context in which gender and sexuality does not define relationships - and I would argue that even were this true for the Godhead, it is not true for those who hear and say this Name.
In Christ,
Gary
more Trinity
Posted by
Peter
at
November 22, 2010 18:29
Gary,
I don't think anyone suggests alternative names for the Trinity lightly except in jest. While I appreciate the concerns you have raised, I don't fully agree that all of the theological concerns are too problematic. I think "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" works very well for most Christians. The next stand that CORE seems to be gearing up for is on whether alternative names are acceptable or not. To the extent that I see identifying Sophia as Christ as completely missing the message of Christ, I think there is some gain to be had in clarifying this issue. Unfortunately, I fear that the argument will be more generally along the lines of "Oh noez! Paganism!" than engaging the reasons for the patriarchal Trinitarian language and how/why that language serves as a barrier for some people to Christ's message. This is what I meant about it becoming a language of death-- some people can find and hear no Good News in a patriarchal naming of God. It's not about avoiding offense or hiding from death so much as helping to illustrate that in Jesus, God brings new life where there is death, instead of more death on top of the current level of death.
To derive Christ's divinity from justification, I don't go from the resurrection (though Christ's sinlessness may be sufficient indication), but actually use the penal substitution. No one apart from God could make atonement before God for our sins like Jesus does. It is specifically through the ability of Jesus' death to be for us that He must be God. Even if you assume God the Father is the primary aspect of the Trinity doing the forgiveness (which IMO removes a need for a Trinity in the first place and is inconsistent with Jesus being the one to judge the living and the dead in the Creed), there has to be something unique about Jesus that warrants it on our behalf, which is divinity. I know for Forde and others penal substitution doesn't work, and while I haven't fully come to terms with Forde's model, it's a powerful model. However, penal substitution did work for Luther, and I think today it's at least a mixed bag.
I don't think anyone suggests alternative names for the Trinity lightly except in jest. While I appreciate the concerns you have raised, I don't fully agree that all of the theological concerns are too problematic. I think "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" works very well for most Christians. The next stand that CORE seems to be gearing up for is on whether alternative names are acceptable or not. To the extent that I see identifying Sophia as Christ as completely missing the message of Christ, I think there is some gain to be had in clarifying this issue. Unfortunately, I fear that the argument will be more generally along the lines of "Oh noez! Paganism!" than engaging the reasons for the patriarchal Trinitarian language and how/why that language serves as a barrier for some people to Christ's message. This is what I meant about it becoming a language of death-- some people can find and hear no Good News in a patriarchal naming of God. It's not about avoiding offense or hiding from death so much as helping to illustrate that in Jesus, God brings new life where there is death, instead of more death on top of the current level of death.
To derive Christ's divinity from justification, I don't go from the resurrection (though Christ's sinlessness may be sufficient indication), but actually use the penal substitution. No one apart from God could make atonement before God for our sins like Jesus does. It is specifically through the ability of Jesus' death to be for us that He must be God. Even if you assume God the Father is the primary aspect of the Trinity doing the forgiveness (which IMO removes a need for a Trinity in the first place and is inconsistent with Jesus being the one to judge the living and the dead in the Creed), there has to be something unique about Jesus that warrants it on our behalf, which is divinity. I know for Forde and others penal substitution doesn't work, and while I haven't fully come to terms with Forde's model, it's a powerful model. However, penal substitution did work for Luther, and I think today it's at least a mixed bag.
2 points
Posted by
Gary
at
November 30, 2010 16:26
Dear Peter:
Two brief thoughts. Firstly, the male gender is not synonymous with patriarchy, and separating the two cannot be done by doing away with masculine theological language. Instead, the difficult conversation about the male language of God being in fact a direct confrontation with the concepts of patriarchy must be had.
Second, you don't need penal substitution to believe in the saving power of Christ, which is your actual argument for divinity here (Christ saves us, and could only do so if He is divine). I really hate penal substitutionary atonement because it takes a medieval language that Anselm came up with in a legal sense and imports it into our own context and our misapprehensions regarding sacrifice, which is far more dangerous conceptually to the suffering than a male language for the Trinity.
Thanks for the talk, though! In Christ,
Gary
Two brief thoughts. Firstly, the male gender is not synonymous with patriarchy, and separating the two cannot be done by doing away with masculine theological language. Instead, the difficult conversation about the male language of God being in fact a direct confrontation with the concepts of patriarchy must be had.
Second, you don't need penal substitution to believe in the saving power of Christ, which is your actual argument for divinity here (Christ saves us, and could only do so if He is divine). I really hate penal substitutionary atonement because it takes a medieval language that Anselm came up with in a legal sense and imports it into our own context and our misapprehensions regarding sacrifice, which is far more dangerous conceptually to the suffering than a male language for the Trinity.
Thanks for the talk, though! In Christ,
Gary
Honest
Posted by
Gary
at
November 08, 2010 14:04
Dear Mick,
First, let me thank you for responding honestly. I appreciate that deeply. I have a tendency to number what I say for simple reference; I hope that doesn't offend or disconcert you. I appreciate also your capacity for candor; I agree that we do not have time in life to be "nice", but only to be good. I will strive to aim for the latter rather than the former.
1. Regarding my ignorance of the criticisms and/or the theological positions of CORE, NALC, and individuals on Lutheran Forum: I am, as I said, a seminarian - I have trouble keeping up with the nightly news. I am aware of snippets of argument: charges of Antinomianism and biblical unfaithfulness come to the forefront in my mind. But I have never seen a counterargument, that is, a systematic theology which takes the position that a sexually active homosexual cannot be ordained seriously.
2. Regarding your biblical statements, I have no knowledge of how Scripture could condemn homosexuality. In the Old Testament passages, such things limit inbreeding and regulate treatment of war prisoners (captured men were often sodomized as prisoners). In the New Testament all evidence points to Paul critiquing male penetration as an aspect of the patron/client dynamic in antiquity. The resulting conclusion is that these passages are about mercy and equality, not primarily about who may have sexual relationships with whom. As for your appeal to tradition, this applies to female ordination, and thus unless you also judge that women cannot be ordained you are making an inconsistent interpretation of Scripture. This is part of what I meant when I said I did not understand the argument.
3. Regarding the Triune name: your previous post implied that the ELCA was beginning to lean toward changing the Trinitarian formula, and that is what I was responding to. What you speak of is a feminist change which is not looked favorably upon by the seminarians and professors I have discussed it with for various reasons. The trouble with calling God the Father "Mother" in a Triune formula is that Jesus' mother was Mary; singly, the title of God as a Mother is actually scriptural. However there is no reason to believe the ELCA is changing the Triune formula or even talking about doing so - I choose to believe that you picked up some textbooks on constructive theology and were freaked out by something regarding feminist critique. Rest assured that all trends indicate a strengthening of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the ELCA.
4. Regarding the way in which CWA occurred, you fail to specify the "they" in your language. Do you mean the ELCA? It should, since the whole point of CWA is to discern the desires of the assembled ELCA. Interpreted this way your sentence doesn't make sense; thus I can't tell who this nebulous "they" could be. But if the ELCA as a majority body generally wanted to move in this direction, of course it would look exactly as you describe.
5. Your point about membership in the Church is interesting. Here I assume you are talking about the ELCA (as opposed to the term "Church") which I agree is a membership that is chosen and that individuals are responsible for. But I encourage you to remember that the ELCA is a part of the Church, into which you are baptized and in which you are not a voluntary member who can leave. I'm curious about the division of our country that you speak of, since in my experience it's more a division of ideologies - who thinks that whether you are engaged in homosexual unions determines one's morality is keen on making this division a vast and vital point. But in my experience, the upcoming generations (at least where I've grown up and gone to school) barely care. There are some who insist that homosexuality is a sin, but they also tend to say women should not speak in congregations. I wonder about how you have encountered this issue, but I beg you to believe that there are more perspectives than the pro/con dichotomy.
6. Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold. The sexuality statement allows congregations to change their minds. If a congregation really disagrees with the pastor (something that should get hashed out in the call interviews) and the pastor wants to break trust or confidence, the congregation should seek another pastor. I don't know what power you are referring to, since constitutionally no pastor can force their views on a congregation. And to be perfectly honest, I don't see how telling someone that their attraction to a certain sex, or with whom they engage in sexuality, makes them a bad person is any different from bigotry. I tell you that honestly because you have been frank with me. I, however, think that this is more a lack of critical thinking than it is a moral failing.
7. Your point against my last paragraph does not address my concern. My point is this: those who abuse their neighbor's characters for the sake of this argument are breaking the eighth commandment. Whether or not the ELCA is falsely representing scripture is irrelevant to this concern. As to dissenting premises, I concur that this seems to be the case: but I am aware of my presuppositions (example: love of God and neighbor suborns and contains all the commandments; God shows no partiality; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; Jesus Christ is Lord; the Nicene Creed; historical context is key to the interpretation of scripture; tradition is something to be in conversation with, not something to be legalized; etc.), whereas I have not been able to figure out what the presuppositions of persons like yourself are. My worst fear is that one of your premises is "Homosexual activity is wrong"; if this is one of your presuppositions, no wonder the conversation never goes anywhere. If you would like me to understand your position, and I would like to, perhaps you could tell me what premises you bring to this issue?
I am very happy that you are still with us after your heart attack, if only to converse with me (to say nothing of your congregation and family). I hope you take care of yourself.
In Christ,
Gary
First, let me thank you for responding honestly. I appreciate that deeply. I have a tendency to number what I say for simple reference; I hope that doesn't offend or disconcert you. I appreciate also your capacity for candor; I agree that we do not have time in life to be "nice", but only to be good. I will strive to aim for the latter rather than the former.
1. Regarding my ignorance of the criticisms and/or the theological positions of CORE, NALC, and individuals on Lutheran Forum: I am, as I said, a seminarian - I have trouble keeping up with the nightly news. I am aware of snippets of argument: charges of Antinomianism and biblical unfaithfulness come to the forefront in my mind. But I have never seen a counterargument, that is, a systematic theology which takes the position that a sexually active homosexual cannot be ordained seriously.
2. Regarding your biblical statements, I have no knowledge of how Scripture could condemn homosexuality. In the Old Testament passages, such things limit inbreeding and regulate treatment of war prisoners (captured men were often sodomized as prisoners). In the New Testament all evidence points to Paul critiquing male penetration as an aspect of the patron/client dynamic in antiquity. The resulting conclusion is that these passages are about mercy and equality, not primarily about who may have sexual relationships with whom. As for your appeal to tradition, this applies to female ordination, and thus unless you also judge that women cannot be ordained you are making an inconsistent interpretation of Scripture. This is part of what I meant when I said I did not understand the argument.
3. Regarding the Triune name: your previous post implied that the ELCA was beginning to lean toward changing the Trinitarian formula, and that is what I was responding to. What you speak of is a feminist change which is not looked favorably upon by the seminarians and professors I have discussed it with for various reasons. The trouble with calling God the Father "Mother" in a Triune formula is that Jesus' mother was Mary; singly, the title of God as a Mother is actually scriptural. However there is no reason to believe the ELCA is changing the Triune formula or even talking about doing so - I choose to believe that you picked up some textbooks on constructive theology and were freaked out by something regarding feminist critique. Rest assured that all trends indicate a strengthening of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the ELCA.
4. Regarding the way in which CWA occurred, you fail to specify the "they" in your language. Do you mean the ELCA? It should, since the whole point of CWA is to discern the desires of the assembled ELCA. Interpreted this way your sentence doesn't make sense; thus I can't tell who this nebulous "they" could be. But if the ELCA as a majority body generally wanted to move in this direction, of course it would look exactly as you describe.
5. Your point about membership in the Church is interesting. Here I assume you are talking about the ELCA (as opposed to the term "Church") which I agree is a membership that is chosen and that individuals are responsible for. But I encourage you to remember that the ELCA is a part of the Church, into which you are baptized and in which you are not a voluntary member who can leave. I'm curious about the division of our country that you speak of, since in my experience it's more a division of ideologies - who thinks that whether you are engaged in homosexual unions determines one's morality is keen on making this division a vast and vital point. But in my experience, the upcoming generations (at least where I've grown up and gone to school) barely care. There are some who insist that homosexuality is a sin, but they also tend to say women should not speak in congregations. I wonder about how you have encountered this issue, but I beg you to believe that there are more perspectives than the pro/con dichotomy.
6. Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold. The sexuality statement allows congregations to change their minds. If a congregation really disagrees with the pastor (something that should get hashed out in the call interviews) and the pastor wants to break trust or confidence, the congregation should seek another pastor. I don't know what power you are referring to, since constitutionally no pastor can force their views on a congregation. And to be perfectly honest, I don't see how telling someone that their attraction to a certain sex, or with whom they engage in sexuality, makes them a bad person is any different from bigotry. I tell you that honestly because you have been frank with me. I, however, think that this is more a lack of critical thinking than it is a moral failing.
7. Your point against my last paragraph does not address my concern. My point is this: those who abuse their neighbor's characters for the sake of this argument are breaking the eighth commandment. Whether or not the ELCA is falsely representing scripture is irrelevant to this concern. As to dissenting premises, I concur that this seems to be the case: but I am aware of my presuppositions (example: love of God and neighbor suborns and contains all the commandments; God shows no partiality; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; Jesus Christ is Lord; the Nicene Creed; historical context is key to the interpretation of scripture; tradition is something to be in conversation with, not something to be legalized; etc.), whereas I have not been able to figure out what the presuppositions of persons like yourself are. My worst fear is that one of your premises is "Homosexual activity is wrong"; if this is one of your presuppositions, no wonder the conversation never goes anywhere. If you would like me to understand your position, and I would like to, perhaps you could tell me what premises you bring to this issue?
I am very happy that you are still with us after your heart attack, if only to converse with me (to say nothing of your congregation and family). I hope you take care of yourself.
In Christ,
Gary
presuppositions
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
November 11, 2010 17:53
Dear Gary:
Let’s begin with something you wrote in your last paragraph. Specifically: “My worst fear is that one of your premises is "Homosexual activity is wrong"...”. Statements such as these just about drive me to despair for any meaningful conversation on the subject. I cannot count the number of times after carefully presenting my case the exchange ends with my fellow conversationalist remarking with some variation of “you’re full of sh*t. The real truth is you just hate the fags”. (Excuse the vulgarism. But loving Christians seem to be not above such odious accusations. There is something about the subject that they believe gives them the prerogative to be abusive. So much for putting on the “best construction”.) And the very fact that that you bring it up suggests you may entertain the possibility that unadorned hatred is at the base of my position and that all else are just rationalizations.
Of course, the human heart can be quite deceptive even to its owner. I can protest all day long that I believe no such thing and it still would be of no avail to those who damn me as for having a black spirit. So I leave that up to who know me best.
For my part, let me paint for you some personal history that is a backdrop and perhaps provide some contrast much of my thinking. When I grew up and dinosaurs walked the earth (I was born in the early 1950’s), I remember quite well the brutality laid upon gays. Any boy who was in any way effeminate was treated viciously. Those otherwise suspected of homosexuality received treatment scarcely better. It was quite common for the tough guys to beat the living daylights out of gays when they thought no one was looking—and teachers, the police, and other grownups often looked the other way. I was an “outcast” for a much different reason and suffered abuse myself; but it was nothing compared to what happened to gays and those thought to be gays. I should say “suspected” gays because in those days one did not openly admit to having same-sex attractions. It was also the time when boys were terrified—absolutely terrified—at the prospect that they might be gay. Being that I was in somewhat in the same boat as gays, my sympathies were with these “social exiles” and wished the bullies would just leave them alone. (Although today we wouldn’t think it be enough, being “left alone” would have been a vast improvement back then.) College was better—although open homosexuality was rarely ventured. We mostly knew who didn’t share our enthusiasm for the opposite sex; but that was the “what two people did behind closed doors was nobody’s business” era. It was the time of what we quaintly called the “new morality” and if we heterosexuals wanted our exploits without complications then it seemed fair play not to stick our noses into what our neighbor did—whatever it was. Except that it didn’t stop some jock (they were invariably “jocks”) from thinking it was his privilege to torment those who weren’t “man enough”. Lesbians were believed to be rare birds and were mostly only the subject of tall stories in the locker rooms. Rarely did they meet up with physical violence although it was not unknown. (It was widely believed that no lesbian wouldn’t prefer a man if she “had the chance”.)
I’ll fully admit that I didn’t step up to defend any one these individuals when I should have. I was a coward pure and simple. Nonetheless, given the all the misery and broken lives we heterosexuals left in our wake giving ourselves permission trash any notion of sexual chastity by indulging our lust for other heterosexual body parts, we are hardly in any position to feel self-righteous. My heart goes out to the gay man or woman who gives testimony to sadistic cruelty which had been heaped on them by a callous society. I relate all this in order to explain that whatever my failings the last thing I want to do is add additional suffering to their burdens.
In spite of the fact that by nature I would rather be on the other side of the question, I keep coming up to the testimony of the Word Of God. I am fully aware you don’t understand why the Scriptures present any roadblock to me. In fact, you may even think the whole idea ludicrous. I credit this to you and I being on the opposite sides of a deeper theological faultline. As one professor one remarked to me, it seems that although we sit in the same pews there are really two different Christian Churches. We use the same words but we mean different things by them. Statements you regard as “fact” and “axiomatic” I would say were not so. Facts both you and I recognize which you think clearly point in one direction I am apt to point out that they don’t mean what you think they mean.
I am old enough to remember to Kennedy/Nixon presidential election of 1960. I distinctly remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. I actually saw the Beatles perform live on the Ed Sullivan Show. Martin Luther King giving “I Have A Dream” speech in Washington D.C. Civil Rights. Vietnam. The assassinations. I saw liftoff of Apollo 11 and the landing on the moon on TV. The first time I was exposed to the theological issues surrounding homosexuality was in 1970.
I am often amazed at how the basic lines of argument are virtually unchanged from those days. The difference today is that many of the things about homosexuality in Christian theology you accept as givens were regarded as crackpot theories originating from the far edges of the Christian community--even within the academic Christian community. Few took them seriously and nearly all were certain that the church never would the time of day. Even homosexual rights advocates in the church ridiculed the idea of “gay marriage” stating that it was a red herring dreamed up by opponents to derail their pursuit of equality. Note: That was only forty years ago. Forty years may seem like a long time to you and me; but in terms of the history of the development of Christian doctrine it is a blink of the eye.
[Next time you guarantee yourself: “…there is no reason to believe the ELCA is changing the Triune formula or even talking about doing so…”, remember that number—forty years.]
I have carefully looked over the presuppositions you to bring to the discussion. My first impulse would be to full assent; but on further thought, as a cluster of assumptions, there is something undigested about them. Some hesitations:
“Love of God and neighbor suborns and contains all the commandments” Given a broken creation, fallen men and women, and darkened understanding, do we not need God’s Word show us what actually is an act of love for our neighbor? Are there not things our hearts desire for ourselves which are in reality destructive? Just because we desire them, does that mean it is an act of love to give them to us? If God is love, is all love of God? When Christ says “Love Thy Neighbor as thyself”, does it only mean as we want to be loved or in addition, more significantly, as we aught to love ourselves? Isn’t sin often not something evil in and of itself but an illicit use of something intended to be used for good?
“God shows no partiality; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. God loves each of us as if there were no one else. Each sin, from the greatest to the smallest, breaks the entire Law of God thus we are all beggars before the mercy of God. But does not each kind of sin bear differing consequence and gravity in the temporal world? Even as God has forgiven us, do we not have to bear the consequences of our sins in this life—especially persistent sin. Are all sins to be treated the same, even within the Church? Does not 1 Timothy 3:1-3 indicate that, in principle, there are some sins which disqualify one from leadership?
“Historical context is key to the interpretation of scripture” Historical context is A key. It is hardly the only one. “Part to whole and whole to part” comes to mind. In addition, “context” has its own problems. The precise content of historical context is subject to flux and revision—sometimes radical revision. Reviews of past attempts to put Biblical text in historical context show these attempts often reflect the cultural times in which these endeavors were performed as much as the actual historical elements themselves. This is not to say such attempts should not be made. What is called for is much more humility in making definitive claims. In addition, text and context are a two way street. Context informing text can easily be run in reverse: text can enlighten us in what the actual character of that context was.
“Tradition is something to be in conversation with, not something to be legalized”. Here I believe you and I have two different evaluations of tradition and what it is. Tradition does not have equal standing with Scripture. I am uncomfortable with the oft used “three-legged-stool” illustration of proper Biblical interpretation in which the three legs are The Bible, tradition and reason. I understand what is trying to be said; but in practice it is always Scripture that is demoted or “cut down to size”. The “three-legged-stool” certain cuts “sola scriptura” off at the knees.
That being said, tradition is more than a bunch of rules cobbled together by human beings. Tradition is the cumulative attempt of the Church across the centuries to think along with Scripture—much as one tries to look along a beam of light to see what it illuminates. In all humility, we know that Her endeavor to listen to and think through the voice of Scripture has always fallen short and often misbegotten. The tools of one era we have may be illuminating and adequate for the time; but the same tools may prove to be a hindrance and useless in another—perhaps had originally set us on the wrong track altogether.
At the same time, as Chesterton said, tradition is the “democracy of the dead”. This means that tradition is a check against the intellectual huburus of chroncenterism—the erroneous belief that our time knows so much more and is so much wiser than all others. Tradition is not something you converse with as if one were to talk to a mason about what kind of brick to lay down for a patio. Tradition is not merely one option among many. Tradition is the considered judgment and teaching of the Church. To overturn or set aside a traditional teaching of the Church, one has to make a convincing case—not just persuasive—not “maybe possible”—convincing. The burden of proof rests with the challenger.
What of our own Church of the Reformation? Does it not represent a break with tradition? This is a difficult question to answer and there are certainly better and more qualified individuals to address the matter. Of course, in part, some of us will maintain that in fact the Lutheran Church is a reforming movement within the Church catholic. (catholic small “c”) I am not personally wholly satisfied with this assurance but I do accept it as part of the answer—a minor part but a part nonetheless.
Perhaps we can take a queue from John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”. Newman asserted that a true Christian doctrine developed years and centuries after the days of the apostles always finds its seeds in the days of the early Church. Luther did not invent “Saved by grace alone” and “Sola Scriptura” out of whole cloth. These find their antecedents in both St. Paul and St. Augustine. Luther, in an important way, was not seeking a revolution but a restoration.
As I have read him, Luther himself did not blithely disregard tradition. He often called upon tradition to correct tradition. Thus, it can be argued that Lutheranism is an argument of tradition within tradition. Since his death, although we are often loath to say it, we Lutherans have our own tradition to which we are accountable if we are to be meaningfully to be Lutheran. Of course, there is no law which compels you to meet the bar of tradition; but I don’t want to hear any more sunshine about ecumenism out of you if you don’t.
So what else do I bring to the table? Here are a few of my presuppositions.
1.) I take what I am told is a “high view” of Scripture. I take it seriously as the Word of God. I am not a literalist as some charge. I am not a fundamentalist who believes that if one detail found in the Bible proves to be incorrect then the entire Bible is worthless. On the other hand, neither do I believe Scripture says nothing until the Church “calls” it. I liken Scripture an earthen urn. It has visible cracks and human fingerprints. For the lack of a better word, my view is “sacramental”. Scripture is definitely made of human clay; but it is also ultimately Word Of God in a way we do not know or understand.
2.) I do not look to the Bible as a textbook of science or history. Neither do I give science or history the final word as to what Scripture means. Science and history do not have the reach or authority to rule out the supernatural.
3.) The Word of God stands outside our own experiences. Experience is no guide nor is it an arbiter as to its meaning. There is no “truth is what is true for me”. God’s truth is true whether I experience or not.
4.) With you, I believe “love of God and neighbor suborns and contains all the commandments”—with one important stipulation. The Law is also the Word of God. This sometimes is overlooked or even denied. Law does not save—this most certainly is true. Luther said the Christian does not need the law—but the creature does. Our nature as both children of God and fallen men and women in a broken world (sinner/saint) does not allow us to dismiss the Law. Justification in and of itself does not derive moral imperatives. Justification does not erase sin as sin. Grace does not remove whatever moral obstacles there may be to becoming a shepherd to His sheep. This leads to the subjects of what parts of the Law are still “in force” for us and the “uses” of the Law; but those would only distract us for the main of our conversation. Spare me the inane questions such as “how come you eat cheeseburgers?”.
“But I have never seen a counterargument, that is, a systematic theology which takes the position that a sexually active homosexual cannot be ordained seriously. “ In many ways, I am puzzled by this. The first thing I would note is that this is not so much arguing with Christian tradition as much as taking for granted ordaining a sexually active homosexual as the default setting. The second is that if you have never “seen” the counterargument, then seminary really is less diverse than I thought. (Just where is a “traditionally-minded” pastor a congregation might want supposed to come from?) If no Lutheran theologian is willing to make the case, are there no Catholic theologians your school cares to invite to provide another point of view? 3.) I do not know what you mean by “a systematic theology” for what you require. Systematic theology as I am given to understand works to present a coherent structure to the collection of Christian doctrine. Sounds like you want a hammer to do the job of a jeweler’s tool. Of course, what you may mean is that you haven’t seen anything to your satisfaction. That would put you and I in the same boat except on opposite ends.
2. Regarding your biblical statements, I have no knowledge of how Scripture could condemn homosexuality. In the Old Testament passages, such things limit inbreeding and regulate treatment of war prisoners (captured men were often sodomized as prisoners). In the New Testament all evidence points to Paul critiquing male penetration as an aspect of the patron/client dynamic in antiquity. The resulting conclusion is that these passages are about mercy and equality, not primarily about who may have sexual relationships with whom.
“… I have no knowledge of how Scripture could condemn homosexuality…” As bad as fundamentalists, liberals are notorious for anachronisms. That is the projection of modern concepts and values into ancient times. In the current dispute, these projections are usually put in service for the “It is not really about “that” (homosexuality), it is actually about “this” (fill in the anachronism of your choice). “The Old Testament passages you refer to cannot be about “limiting inbreeding”. Anthropologists had thrown this explanation out for all incest taboos long ago. There are of number reasons, for this. The first being that given the very high rate of mortality and disease in ancient times, there was no ways ancient peoples could “separate for effects”. The second is that inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects. What inbreeding does do is increase the frequency of homozygotes and these have diverging effects. The third is that incest taboos (including those in the Old Testament) include both blood and non-blood relationships. “…regulate treatment of war prisoners…) There no evidence that war prisoners were given any special regard terms of forced sodomy given the humiliation, brutality, enslavement and execution that were the frequent consequence of their capture.
St. Paul’s treatment of homosexuality requires quite a bit of unpacking which space precludes. I will just say a few things. The first is that your peering into the “essence” as “patron/client dynamic” is unreasonably minimalist. Second, in the Greek and Roman world, the words Paul uses had a much broader meaning tan individual who engaged in monitory exchange. And third, our modern concern for equality—especially universal equality—is just that: modern. The ancients (including Paul) simply did not think in those terms. Paul never addressed the social stratification of the world—even the master/slave relationships in church. It is to the chagrin of all of who deeply believe in freedom as God-given aspect of the integrity of the person he did not. Paul was more focused on righteousness, love members of the church for one another, and our kinship under the Lordship of Christ.
As much as I sometimes wish some men and women in the church would shut up—not the least among them are many who agree with me—I don’t have any Biblical problems with female Pastors. To be fair, those who disagree with me on this score don’t believe the church has the authority to ordain women—usually believing that males and females have complementary roles (not the same) within the church. I don’t agree with them. Just as I believe Paul’s letter to Philemon contains the seeds for the abolition of slavery, I believe similar seeds are found in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
Before I fall asleep, I’ll wrap this up briefly addressing two of your objections.
Who are “They”? I mean primarily the ELCA leadership and their acolytes. What about the CWA? First, let me point out that the ELCA leadership seems to be quite happy to take the advice and agreement from the CWA’s; then they make their own decisions. The excuctive staff has a noted history of not taking “no” from the CWA’s—running the same question through again and again until the desired end is reached—if not this CWA then the next.
Additionally, I have had a problem with the nature of the CWAs for a long time. At my own synod’s assemblies, I have been approached by a number of delegates who have apologized to me for not joining me in voting against “X”. They say they felt I was right; but they felt it was their duty to give the church what it wants. How sizable is this block? I don’t know; but it can be enough to give victory the margin it needs. But foremost, in choosing delegates to synod assembly, those usually are not picked by who is the best or who is the most representative; but by who the congregation can get to go. Once at synod assembly, we are precluded from knowing how any nominee to a CWA would vote on the issues. Finally, I have been dismayed by the general level of Biblical illiteracy in the Lutheran Church as well as the surprising number who have NEVER cracked open the Small Catechism—let alone the Large. There is no reason our delegates are any different. Are these truly qualified to make momentous decisions?
“But I encourage you to remember that the ELCA is a part of the Church…” This is in a part of the contention. It is with its decision that the ELCA has become schismatic and sectarian; choosing to go its own way; breaking with the universal church. Luther and the reformers did not leave the Catholic Church to keep the teaching of “by faith alone”. They were removed and here we remain after all these centuries with considerable hostility from the Roman Church until the Second Vatican Council. Today, the ELCA, (in spite of much ecumenical work) deliberately dances even further away from the Church (both Rome and Eastern Orthodox which hold the vast majority of all the world’s Christians)—creating breeches in the name of entitlements. I have no interest in becoming just another “mainline” Protestant.
Let’s begin with something you wrote in your last paragraph. Specifically: “My worst fear is that one of your premises is "Homosexual activity is wrong"...”. Statements such as these just about drive me to despair for any meaningful conversation on the subject. I cannot count the number of times after carefully presenting my case the exchange ends with my fellow conversationalist remarking with some variation of “you’re full of sh*t. The real truth is you just hate the fags”. (Excuse the vulgarism. But loving Christians seem to be not above such odious accusations. There is something about the subject that they believe gives them the prerogative to be abusive. So much for putting on the “best construction”.) And the very fact that that you bring it up suggests you may entertain the possibility that unadorned hatred is at the base of my position and that all else are just rationalizations.
Of course, the human heart can be quite deceptive even to its owner. I can protest all day long that I believe no such thing and it still would be of no avail to those who damn me as for having a black spirit. So I leave that up to who know me best.
For my part, let me paint for you some personal history that is a backdrop and perhaps provide some contrast much of my thinking. When I grew up and dinosaurs walked the earth (I was born in the early 1950’s), I remember quite well the brutality laid upon gays. Any boy who was in any way effeminate was treated viciously. Those otherwise suspected of homosexuality received treatment scarcely better. It was quite common for the tough guys to beat the living daylights out of gays when they thought no one was looking—and teachers, the police, and other grownups often looked the other way. I was an “outcast” for a much different reason and suffered abuse myself; but it was nothing compared to what happened to gays and those thought to be gays. I should say “suspected” gays because in those days one did not openly admit to having same-sex attractions. It was also the time when boys were terrified—absolutely terrified—at the prospect that they might be gay. Being that I was in somewhat in the same boat as gays, my sympathies were with these “social exiles” and wished the bullies would just leave them alone. (Although today we wouldn’t think it be enough, being “left alone” would have been a vast improvement back then.) College was better—although open homosexuality was rarely ventured. We mostly knew who didn’t share our enthusiasm for the opposite sex; but that was the “what two people did behind closed doors was nobody’s business” era. It was the time of what we quaintly called the “new morality” and if we heterosexuals wanted our exploits without complications then it seemed fair play not to stick our noses into what our neighbor did—whatever it was. Except that it didn’t stop some jock (they were invariably “jocks”) from thinking it was his privilege to torment those who weren’t “man enough”. Lesbians were believed to be rare birds and were mostly only the subject of tall stories in the locker rooms. Rarely did they meet up with physical violence although it was not unknown. (It was widely believed that no lesbian wouldn’t prefer a man if she “had the chance”.)
I’ll fully admit that I didn’t step up to defend any one these individuals when I should have. I was a coward pure and simple. Nonetheless, given the all the misery and broken lives we heterosexuals left in our wake giving ourselves permission trash any notion of sexual chastity by indulging our lust for other heterosexual body parts, we are hardly in any position to feel self-righteous. My heart goes out to the gay man or woman who gives testimony to sadistic cruelty which had been heaped on them by a callous society. I relate all this in order to explain that whatever my failings the last thing I want to do is add additional suffering to their burdens.
In spite of the fact that by nature I would rather be on the other side of the question, I keep coming up to the testimony of the Word Of God. I am fully aware you don’t understand why the Scriptures present any roadblock to me. In fact, you may even think the whole idea ludicrous. I credit this to you and I being on the opposite sides of a deeper theological faultline. As one professor one remarked to me, it seems that although we sit in the same pews there are really two different Christian Churches. We use the same words but we mean different things by them. Statements you regard as “fact” and “axiomatic” I would say were not so. Facts both you and I recognize which you think clearly point in one direction I am apt to point out that they don’t mean what you think they mean.
I am old enough to remember to Kennedy/Nixon presidential election of 1960. I distinctly remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. I actually saw the Beatles perform live on the Ed Sullivan Show. Martin Luther King giving “I Have A Dream” speech in Washington D.C. Civil Rights. Vietnam. The assassinations. I saw liftoff of Apollo 11 and the landing on the moon on TV. The first time I was exposed to the theological issues surrounding homosexuality was in 1970.
I am often amazed at how the basic lines of argument are virtually unchanged from those days. The difference today is that many of the things about homosexuality in Christian theology you accept as givens were regarded as crackpot theories originating from the far edges of the Christian community--even within the academic Christian community. Few took them seriously and nearly all were certain that the church never would the time of day. Even homosexual rights advocates in the church ridiculed the idea of “gay marriage” stating that it was a red herring dreamed up by opponents to derail their pursuit of equality. Note: That was only forty years ago. Forty years may seem like a long time to you and me; but in terms of the history of the development of Christian doctrine it is a blink of the eye.
[Next time you guarantee yourself: “…there is no reason to believe the ELCA is changing the Triune formula or even talking about doing so…”, remember that number—forty years.]
I have carefully looked over the presuppositions you to bring to the discussion. My first impulse would be to full assent; but on further thought, as a cluster of assumptions, there is something undigested about them. Some hesitations:
“Love of God and neighbor suborns and contains all the commandments” Given a broken creation, fallen men and women, and darkened understanding, do we not need God’s Word show us what actually is an act of love for our neighbor? Are there not things our hearts desire for ourselves which are in reality destructive? Just because we desire them, does that mean it is an act of love to give them to us? If God is love, is all love of God? When Christ says “Love Thy Neighbor as thyself”, does it only mean as we want to be loved or in addition, more significantly, as we aught to love ourselves? Isn’t sin often not something evil in and of itself but an illicit use of something intended to be used for good?
“God shows no partiality; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. God loves each of us as if there were no one else. Each sin, from the greatest to the smallest, breaks the entire Law of God thus we are all beggars before the mercy of God. But does not each kind of sin bear differing consequence and gravity in the temporal world? Even as God has forgiven us, do we not have to bear the consequences of our sins in this life—especially persistent sin. Are all sins to be treated the same, even within the Church? Does not 1 Timothy 3:1-3 indicate that, in principle, there are some sins which disqualify one from leadership?
“Historical context is key to the interpretation of scripture” Historical context is A key. It is hardly the only one. “Part to whole and whole to part” comes to mind. In addition, “context” has its own problems. The precise content of historical context is subject to flux and revision—sometimes radical revision. Reviews of past attempts to put Biblical text in historical context show these attempts often reflect the cultural times in which these endeavors were performed as much as the actual historical elements themselves. This is not to say such attempts should not be made. What is called for is much more humility in making definitive claims. In addition, text and context are a two way street. Context informing text can easily be run in reverse: text can enlighten us in what the actual character of that context was.
“Tradition is something to be in conversation with, not something to be legalized”. Here I believe you and I have two different evaluations of tradition and what it is. Tradition does not have equal standing with Scripture. I am uncomfortable with the oft used “three-legged-stool” illustration of proper Biblical interpretation in which the three legs are The Bible, tradition and reason. I understand what is trying to be said; but in practice it is always Scripture that is demoted or “cut down to size”. The “three-legged-stool” certain cuts “sola scriptura” off at the knees.
That being said, tradition is more than a bunch of rules cobbled together by human beings. Tradition is the cumulative attempt of the Church across the centuries to think along with Scripture—much as one tries to look along a beam of light to see what it illuminates. In all humility, we know that Her endeavor to listen to and think through the voice of Scripture has always fallen short and often misbegotten. The tools of one era we have may be illuminating and adequate for the time; but the same tools may prove to be a hindrance and useless in another—perhaps had originally set us on the wrong track altogether.
At the same time, as Chesterton said, tradition is the “democracy of the dead”. This means that tradition is a check against the intellectual huburus of chroncenterism—the erroneous belief that our time knows so much more and is so much wiser than all others. Tradition is not something you converse with as if one were to talk to a mason about what kind of brick to lay down for a patio. Tradition is not merely one option among many. Tradition is the considered judgment and teaching of the Church. To overturn or set aside a traditional teaching of the Church, one has to make a convincing case—not just persuasive—not “maybe possible”—convincing. The burden of proof rests with the challenger.
What of our own Church of the Reformation? Does it not represent a break with tradition? This is a difficult question to answer and there are certainly better and more qualified individuals to address the matter. Of course, in part, some of us will maintain that in fact the Lutheran Church is a reforming movement within the Church catholic. (catholic small “c”) I am not personally wholly satisfied with this assurance but I do accept it as part of the answer—a minor part but a part nonetheless.
Perhaps we can take a queue from John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”. Newman asserted that a true Christian doctrine developed years and centuries after the days of the apostles always finds its seeds in the days of the early Church. Luther did not invent “Saved by grace alone” and “Sola Scriptura” out of whole cloth. These find their antecedents in both St. Paul and St. Augustine. Luther, in an important way, was not seeking a revolution but a restoration.
As I have read him, Luther himself did not blithely disregard tradition. He often called upon tradition to correct tradition. Thus, it can be argued that Lutheranism is an argument of tradition within tradition. Since his death, although we are often loath to say it, we Lutherans have our own tradition to which we are accountable if we are to be meaningfully to be Lutheran. Of course, there is no law which compels you to meet the bar of tradition; but I don’t want to hear any more sunshine about ecumenism out of you if you don’t.
So what else do I bring to the table? Here are a few of my presuppositions.
1.) I take what I am told is a “high view” of Scripture. I take it seriously as the Word of God. I am not a literalist as some charge. I am not a fundamentalist who believes that if one detail found in the Bible proves to be incorrect then the entire Bible is worthless. On the other hand, neither do I believe Scripture says nothing until the Church “calls” it. I liken Scripture an earthen urn. It has visible cracks and human fingerprints. For the lack of a better word, my view is “sacramental”. Scripture is definitely made of human clay; but it is also ultimately Word Of God in a way we do not know or understand.
2.) I do not look to the Bible as a textbook of science or history. Neither do I give science or history the final word as to what Scripture means. Science and history do not have the reach or authority to rule out the supernatural.
3.) The Word of God stands outside our own experiences. Experience is no guide nor is it an arbiter as to its meaning. There is no “truth is what is true for me”. God’s truth is true whether I experience or not.
4.) With you, I believe “love of God and neighbor suborns and contains all the commandments”—with one important stipulation. The Law is also the Word of God. This sometimes is overlooked or even denied. Law does not save—this most certainly is true. Luther said the Christian does not need the law—but the creature does. Our nature as both children of God and fallen men and women in a broken world (sinner/saint) does not allow us to dismiss the Law. Justification in and of itself does not derive moral imperatives. Justification does not erase sin as sin. Grace does not remove whatever moral obstacles there may be to becoming a shepherd to His sheep. This leads to the subjects of what parts of the Law are still “in force” for us and the “uses” of the Law; but those would only distract us for the main of our conversation. Spare me the inane questions such as “how come you eat cheeseburgers?”.
“But I have never seen a counterargument, that is, a systematic theology which takes the position that a sexually active homosexual cannot be ordained seriously. “ In many ways, I am puzzled by this. The first thing I would note is that this is not so much arguing with Christian tradition as much as taking for granted ordaining a sexually active homosexual as the default setting. The second is that if you have never “seen” the counterargument, then seminary really is less diverse than I thought. (Just where is a “traditionally-minded” pastor a congregation might want supposed to come from?) If no Lutheran theologian is willing to make the case, are there no Catholic theologians your school cares to invite to provide another point of view? 3.) I do not know what you mean by “a systematic theology” for what you require. Systematic theology as I am given to understand works to present a coherent structure to the collection of Christian doctrine. Sounds like you want a hammer to do the job of a jeweler’s tool. Of course, what you may mean is that you haven’t seen anything to your satisfaction. That would put you and I in the same boat except on opposite ends.
2. Regarding your biblical statements, I have no knowledge of how Scripture could condemn homosexuality. In the Old Testament passages, such things limit inbreeding and regulate treatment of war prisoners (captured men were often sodomized as prisoners). In the New Testament all evidence points to Paul critiquing male penetration as an aspect of the patron/client dynamic in antiquity. The resulting conclusion is that these passages are about mercy and equality, not primarily about who may have sexual relationships with whom.
“… I have no knowledge of how Scripture could condemn homosexuality…” As bad as fundamentalists, liberals are notorious for anachronisms. That is the projection of modern concepts and values into ancient times. In the current dispute, these projections are usually put in service for the “It is not really about “that” (homosexuality), it is actually about “this” (fill in the anachronism of your choice). “The Old Testament passages you refer to cannot be about “limiting inbreeding”. Anthropologists had thrown this explanation out for all incest taboos long ago. There are of number reasons, for this. The first being that given the very high rate of mortality and disease in ancient times, there was no ways ancient peoples could “separate for effects”. The second is that inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects. What inbreeding does do is increase the frequency of homozygotes and these have diverging effects. The third is that incest taboos (including those in the Old Testament) include both blood and non-blood relationships. “…regulate treatment of war prisoners…) There no evidence that war prisoners were given any special regard terms of forced sodomy given the humiliation, brutality, enslavement and execution that were the frequent consequence of their capture.
St. Paul’s treatment of homosexuality requires quite a bit of unpacking which space precludes. I will just say a few things. The first is that your peering into the “essence” as “patron/client dynamic” is unreasonably minimalist. Second, in the Greek and Roman world, the words Paul uses had a much broader meaning tan individual who engaged in monitory exchange. And third, our modern concern for equality—especially universal equality—is just that: modern. The ancients (including Paul) simply did not think in those terms. Paul never addressed the social stratification of the world—even the master/slave relationships in church. It is to the chagrin of all of who deeply believe in freedom as God-given aspect of the integrity of the person he did not. Paul was more focused on righteousness, love members of the church for one another, and our kinship under the Lordship of Christ.
As much as I sometimes wish some men and women in the church would shut up—not the least among them are many who agree with me—I don’t have any Biblical problems with female Pastors. To be fair, those who disagree with me on this score don’t believe the church has the authority to ordain women—usually believing that males and females have complementary roles (not the same) within the church. I don’t agree with them. Just as I believe Paul’s letter to Philemon contains the seeds for the abolition of slavery, I believe similar seeds are found in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
Before I fall asleep, I’ll wrap this up briefly addressing two of your objections.
Who are “They”? I mean primarily the ELCA leadership and their acolytes. What about the CWA? First, let me point out that the ELCA leadership seems to be quite happy to take the advice and agreement from the CWA’s; then they make their own decisions. The excuctive staff has a noted history of not taking “no” from the CWA’s—running the same question through again and again until the desired end is reached—if not this CWA then the next.
Additionally, I have had a problem with the nature of the CWAs for a long time. At my own synod’s assemblies, I have been approached by a number of delegates who have apologized to me for not joining me in voting against “X”. They say they felt I was right; but they felt it was their duty to give the church what it wants. How sizable is this block? I don’t know; but it can be enough to give victory the margin it needs. But foremost, in choosing delegates to synod assembly, those usually are not picked by who is the best or who is the most representative; but by who the congregation can get to go. Once at synod assembly, we are precluded from knowing how any nominee to a CWA would vote on the issues. Finally, I have been dismayed by the general level of Biblical illiteracy in the Lutheran Church as well as the surprising number who have NEVER cracked open the Small Catechism—let alone the Large. There is no reason our delegates are any different. Are these truly qualified to make momentous decisions?
“But I encourage you to remember that the ELCA is a part of the Church…” This is in a part of the contention. It is with its decision that the ELCA has become schismatic and sectarian; choosing to go its own way; breaking with the universal church. Luther and the reformers did not leave the Catholic Church to keep the teaching of “by faith alone”. They were removed and here we remain after all these centuries with considerable hostility from the Roman Church until the Second Vatican Council. Today, the ELCA, (in spite of much ecumenical work) deliberately dances even further away from the Church (both Rome and Eastern Orthodox which hold the vast majority of all the world’s Christians)—creating breeches in the name of entitlements. I have no interest in becoming just another “mainline” Protestant.
Five Points and Coherence
Posted by
Gary
at
November 11, 2010 19:51
Dear Mick Lee,
For brevity's sake I will try to narrow the field of discussion here a bit.
1. Scripture - I have not heard you present an interpretation of Scripture which counters mine, but instead one that refutes it. You may say whatever you like about Paul's intentions (master/slave dynamic in Philemon, anyone?) but if you are saying that Saint Paul was saying homosexual conduct is a sin, and that sin should bar one from ministry, say so. Your reasoning seems weak to me, but that's to be expected. Since we disagree on scriptural interpretation (clearly) bound conscience applies. We disagree; I do not hold the view of scripture you do, and thus pursuing this tack will get us nowhere. I would however like to point out that the projection of anachronisms is exactly why I can't see how Paul or the Hebrew Scriptures could be talking about what we call homosexuality. (Regarding your refutations, I was simply drawing on what I've learned here at seminary... from memory. This argument could go on forever, but I don't intend to draw a biblical line here - just to show the biblical meaning is contested is sufficient.) At the end of this post I will include a quote from "Journey Together Faithfull" which will address this concern further.
2. Tradition - I am not actually so sure that we have different understandings of tradition here, though I must say that the idea of cutting down Scripture depends on how you interpret Scripture. I can't help but notice you seem to assume that Scripture is some kind of obvious, simple, monolithic entity - which I simply can't see it as. As for "sola scriptura", the solas that I learned in Confessions were "gracia" "fides" and "Christus". I affirm the stance Luther held on scripture, that it is the manger in which Christ is found. I agree that tradition is something to consider carefully. How do you justify the ordination of women, considering your view of scripture and tradition? That might be a clue for where I am disconnecting from you. If such a convincing case must be made to change tradition, what was the case for female ordination? What do you do with the fact that Luther said that the Church is where the marks of the Church are? And what makes the issue of homosexual ordination the level of doctrine? I absolutely agree that tradition critiques tradition. I think that Luther in the Small Catechism critiques Luther in On the Jews and Their Lies. I think that the tradition of love, the teaching of sinner/saint, and the self-reflection on whether homosexuality is something that angers God or appalls the culture is a great question to ask. And, as with Paul, to read homosexuality into the earliest Christian roots is anachronistic, so isn't there an idea that God here might be doing a new thing with something that did not exist in the minds of the early fathers and mothers of the Church?
3. The Law - I will spare you the questions of purity codes and ask directly: what makes homosexual activity so much worse than being angry, rich, lustful, or divisive? Because if it is not, barring homosexual clergy makes no sense. If it is, how so? A good friend of mine (who is more on the fence than I am) likes to say that if homosexuality is a sin, it is unique in the Bible since there is no apparent victim. Say more about this if you please. Oh, and when you say "the law does not save" I assume you mean works of the law.
4. Church - the Augsburg Confession, German, Article VII: "[The Church] is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel... It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere." And VIII: "Although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous, the sacraments--even though administered by unrighteous priests--are efficacious all the same." So long as the ELCA preaches the Word and distributes the Sacraments, it cannot by definition be schismatic or sectarian. The creations of breaches does not make the ELCA something other than part of the catholic Church - and note that, out of respect for those breaches, the ELCA specifically left room for disagreement. Could you explain your point in light of this?
5. Systematics - What I want is a systematic explanation of how you interpret the Bible. I've already explained my hermeneutics, which are in conversation with justification by grace through faith, theology of the cross, and law/gospel. I believe any baptized person can be ordained. Whether or not they are to be ordained is for the discernment of the Church, but this should be based on the individual in every case. To say all homosexuals are barred from ordained ministry, in my mind, is no different from barring all women. Since, so far as I can see, failing to ordain homosexual persons would be a disfavor to the people the Church serves, I agree with the sexuality statement. So what I want is a consistent argument - from nothing up, probably starting with Christ, but working all the way to the conclusion of why homosexuality bars a person from ministry. Especially since it didn't for many years.
Hoping you are well,
In Christ,
Gary
P.S. This is from Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality, by Hultgren and Taylor, 2003 (note that this was six years before CWA):
The question posed at the beginning was: How is it that biblical scholars, studying the same texts and using comparable methods of interpretation, come to different conclusions in regard to what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality? In response to this, the following points can be made.
1. As far as we can tell, the biblical writers knew nothing about “homosexuality” as a sexual orientation.The concepts of “homosexuality,” “homosexual,” “heterosexuality,” and “heterosexual” are modern, first articulated in the latter part of the nineteenth century. As strange as it may sound, it can be said that the Bible teaches nothing concerning homosexuality.
2. Having said that, however, the Bible does have things to say about sexual relationships between men and women and between persons of the same gender. In regard to the latter, the “fault line” between interpreters is a narrow one, but it is very real. On the one hand, there are interpreters who—on reading the texts with care—conclude that, even if the passages in Genesis 19:1–11 and Judges 19:16–30 are set aside (or at least placed on the periphery), the remaining passages speak clearly of same-gender sexual relationships as inherently prohibited. One need not narrow the matter down to any particular kind or kinds of same-gender sexual relationships. The relationships are themselves “against nature” and contrary to the will of God expressed in creation from the beginning.
Other interpreters—on reading the texts with care also—conclude, however, that the same passages pose challenges. Those in Leviticus seem to be the clearest at the purely descriptive level, but as the discussion above has shown, some interpreters question their relevance beyond their time and place. There is a broad consensus among interpreters that the term arsenokoitai(1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10), used by Paul and by the author of the Pastorals, is based on the two texts in Leviticus, but that would not necessarily mean that the Leviticus passages are picked up as normative for Christians in the New Testament. It is possible that whoever coined the term (Paul or a predecessor) used it in a general way to refer to a specific type of samegender activity that was highly visible and repugnant in his own time. In the final analysis, “the etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning.”
3. The difference between interpreters should not be understood as a conflict between those who seek to be “true to Scripture” and those who seek to “twist the Bible” to their own liking. The disagreements are genuine. Nor is one approach intrinsically more “conservative” and the other more “liberal.” It is instructive here to recall that in his translation of the New Testament in 1521 Martin Luther translated arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10) as Knabenschänder (“pederasts”), which is often considered today the “liberal” (“innovative” or “revisionist”) rendering of the word, but he translated malakoi as Weichlinge (which can mean “weaklings,” “soft ones,” even “effeminate ones”), which could be considered the “conservative” (KJV) rendering. This illustrates how labels like “conservative” and “liberal” are both meaningless and inappropriate.
4. The Bible is the primary place to which Christians turn to discern God’s will, but on the basis of the foregoing paragraph, it should be clear that decisions within and for the church concerning “homosexuality” and its attendant issues cannot be arbitrated by biblical scholars alone. Their role must remain modest. They are able to help clarify issues by bringing evidence, arguments, and proposals to the table. But finally their contributions are only one part of a larger discussion among those who seek the mind of Christ in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
For brevity's sake I will try to narrow the field of discussion here a bit.
1. Scripture - I have not heard you present an interpretation of Scripture which counters mine, but instead one that refutes it. You may say whatever you like about Paul's intentions (master/slave dynamic in Philemon, anyone?) but if you are saying that Saint Paul was saying homosexual conduct is a sin, and that sin should bar one from ministry, say so. Your reasoning seems weak to me, but that's to be expected. Since we disagree on scriptural interpretation (clearly) bound conscience applies. We disagree; I do not hold the view of scripture you do, and thus pursuing this tack will get us nowhere. I would however like to point out that the projection of anachronisms is exactly why I can't see how Paul or the Hebrew Scriptures could be talking about what we call homosexuality. (Regarding your refutations, I was simply drawing on what I've learned here at seminary... from memory. This argument could go on forever, but I don't intend to draw a biblical line here - just to show the biblical meaning is contested is sufficient.) At the end of this post I will include a quote from "Journey Together Faithfull" which will address this concern further.
2. Tradition - I am not actually so sure that we have different understandings of tradition here, though I must say that the idea of cutting down Scripture depends on how you interpret Scripture. I can't help but notice you seem to assume that Scripture is some kind of obvious, simple, monolithic entity - which I simply can't see it as. As for "sola scriptura", the solas that I learned in Confessions were "gracia" "fides" and "Christus". I affirm the stance Luther held on scripture, that it is the manger in which Christ is found. I agree that tradition is something to consider carefully. How do you justify the ordination of women, considering your view of scripture and tradition? That might be a clue for where I am disconnecting from you. If such a convincing case must be made to change tradition, what was the case for female ordination? What do you do with the fact that Luther said that the Church is where the marks of the Church are? And what makes the issue of homosexual ordination the level of doctrine? I absolutely agree that tradition critiques tradition. I think that Luther in the Small Catechism critiques Luther in On the Jews and Their Lies. I think that the tradition of love, the teaching of sinner/saint, and the self-reflection on whether homosexuality is something that angers God or appalls the culture is a great question to ask. And, as with Paul, to read homosexuality into the earliest Christian roots is anachronistic, so isn't there an idea that God here might be doing a new thing with something that did not exist in the minds of the early fathers and mothers of the Church?
3. The Law - I will spare you the questions of purity codes and ask directly: what makes homosexual activity so much worse than being angry, rich, lustful, or divisive? Because if it is not, barring homosexual clergy makes no sense. If it is, how so? A good friend of mine (who is more on the fence than I am) likes to say that if homosexuality is a sin, it is unique in the Bible since there is no apparent victim. Say more about this if you please. Oh, and when you say "the law does not save" I assume you mean works of the law.
4. Church - the Augsburg Confession, German, Article VII: "[The Church] is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel... It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere." And VIII: "Although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous, the sacraments--even though administered by unrighteous priests--are efficacious all the same." So long as the ELCA preaches the Word and distributes the Sacraments, it cannot by definition be schismatic or sectarian. The creations of breaches does not make the ELCA something other than part of the catholic Church - and note that, out of respect for those breaches, the ELCA specifically left room for disagreement. Could you explain your point in light of this?
5. Systematics - What I want is a systematic explanation of how you interpret the Bible. I've already explained my hermeneutics, which are in conversation with justification by grace through faith, theology of the cross, and law/gospel. I believe any baptized person can be ordained. Whether or not they are to be ordained is for the discernment of the Church, but this should be based on the individual in every case. To say all homosexuals are barred from ordained ministry, in my mind, is no different from barring all women. Since, so far as I can see, failing to ordain homosexual persons would be a disfavor to the people the Church serves, I agree with the sexuality statement. So what I want is a consistent argument - from nothing up, probably starting with Christ, but working all the way to the conclusion of why homosexuality bars a person from ministry. Especially since it didn't for many years.
Hoping you are well,
In Christ,
Gary
P.S. This is from Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality, by Hultgren and Taylor, 2003 (note that this was six years before CWA):
The question posed at the beginning was: How is it that biblical scholars, studying the same texts and using comparable methods of interpretation, come to different conclusions in regard to what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality? In response to this, the following points can be made.
1. As far as we can tell, the biblical writers knew nothing about “homosexuality” as a sexual orientation.The concepts of “homosexuality,” “homosexual,” “heterosexuality,” and “heterosexual” are modern, first articulated in the latter part of the nineteenth century. As strange as it may sound, it can be said that the Bible teaches nothing concerning homosexuality.
2. Having said that, however, the Bible does have things to say about sexual relationships between men and women and between persons of the same gender. In regard to the latter, the “fault line” between interpreters is a narrow one, but it is very real. On the one hand, there are interpreters who—on reading the texts with care—conclude that, even if the passages in Genesis 19:1–11 and Judges 19:16–30 are set aside (or at least placed on the periphery), the remaining passages speak clearly of same-gender sexual relationships as inherently prohibited. One need not narrow the matter down to any particular kind or kinds of same-gender sexual relationships. The relationships are themselves “against nature” and contrary to the will of God expressed in creation from the beginning.
Other interpreters—on reading the texts with care also—conclude, however, that the same passages pose challenges. Those in Leviticus seem to be the clearest at the purely descriptive level, but as the discussion above has shown, some interpreters question their relevance beyond their time and place. There is a broad consensus among interpreters that the term arsenokoitai(1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10), used by Paul and by the author of the Pastorals, is based on the two texts in Leviticus, but that would not necessarily mean that the Leviticus passages are picked up as normative for Christians in the New Testament. It is possible that whoever coined the term (Paul or a predecessor) used it in a general way to refer to a specific type of samegender activity that was highly visible and repugnant in his own time. In the final analysis, “the etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning.”
3. The difference between interpreters should not be understood as a conflict between those who seek to be “true to Scripture” and those who seek to “twist the Bible” to their own liking. The disagreements are genuine. Nor is one approach intrinsically more “conservative” and the other more “liberal.” It is instructive here to recall that in his translation of the New Testament in 1521 Martin Luther translated arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10) as Knabenschänder (“pederasts”), which is often considered today the “liberal” (“innovative” or “revisionist”) rendering of the word, but he translated malakoi as Weichlinge (which can mean “weaklings,” “soft ones,” even “effeminate ones”), which could be considered the “conservative” (KJV) rendering. This illustrates how labels like “conservative” and “liberal” are both meaningless and inappropriate.
4. The Bible is the primary place to which Christians turn to discern God’s will, but on the basis of the foregoing paragraph, it should be clear that decisions within and for the church concerning “homosexuality” and its attendant issues cannot be arbitrated by biblical scholars alone. Their role must remain modest. They are able to help clarify issues by bringing evidence, arguments, and proposals to the table. But finally their contributions are only one part of a larger discussion among those who seek the mind of Christ in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
General Thoughts on Recent Events in the Lutheran Church
Posted by
Benjamin C. Gessel
at
November 14, 2010 06:03
Recently, one of my friends who is Lutheran has mentioned some events occurring in the Lutheran church he attends. There are certain details that escape me at the present time about what he has described. However, I do know that much of what he has talked about seems to be echoed here in this discussion. I don't know how much help I can be on this subject, or if there is anything I can do or say to help bring feelings of peace, reconciliation, and an agreement regarding what God would want for the people of the Lutheran Church. I feel extremely inadequate in many respects. However, I thought it would do some good to mention a few principles and values which I find should be present in in the lives of all Christians, no matter what church they go to.
The King James translation of the Bible, specifically the moral standards spelled out in the Old Testament regarding same sex intimate relations are quite specific, and need not be debated. The doctrine of the Lord on homosexuality should be clear to any who read the bible with an honest, meek heart. Homosexual acts are are morally wrong, and are grevious sins, but CAN BE REPENTED OF. Homosexuality is not a permanent, unchangeable condition or behavior. Any who engage in homosexual acts, whether publically known of or not, are to be not treated any differently than all others, rather, their private sexual behavior should not be discussed, or dwelled upon by others, esp. in a casual manner. That is a matter that should rest with the individual engaged in homosexual behavior, the Lord, and the pastor who oversees his congregation and the spritual well-being of those in it. All those I know of that consider themselves to be gay, I am friends with, and am not at odds with. I do not discuss their sexual behaviors with them, or think about their homosexuality when talking to them. Only on rare occasions will I approach the subject, if I have known them for a very long time, and we are completely comfortable with each other and know each other very well.
I have also learned recently of a doctrinal discussion going on in the Lutheran Church regarding the gender and identity of God himself, and how God should be addressed. To the extent that this subject is being discussed at the present time, I will simply say this. I have never, not even once, read in any passage of scripture that God was a woman, or, to be referred to in some other way than simply how the Lord himself called upon God in the Lord's Prayer: "Our father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory. Forever, and ever, amen."
It really is this simple. If God is our father, he is male, a male deity, our spiritual father, the very same being whom Jesus prayed to almost 2000 years ago. This is not a minor point of doctrine. It is not debatable, and should be beyond question, what God's true gender is. Understanding the true identity and nature of God, with ever more clarity, depth of understanding and comprehension, is one of the things that we are all striving to do in this life. I can only hope that the Lutheran Church as a whole will hold true to the doctrines that Martin Luther believed in and that the Savior himself taught, even of the identity and character of God the Father.
In closing, I am absolutely certain of the reality and true character of God. He is my spiritual father, and I see him as, in a very real and literal way, the father of all of my fathers before me, stretching back to Adam. When I pray, I address God as my Heavenly Father. It will always be that way, because God never changes, no matter what people may think or say from time to time. I know this to be true.
The King James translation of the Bible, specifically the moral standards spelled out in the Old Testament regarding same sex intimate relations are quite specific, and need not be debated. The doctrine of the Lord on homosexuality should be clear to any who read the bible with an honest, meek heart. Homosexual acts are are morally wrong, and are grevious sins, but CAN BE REPENTED OF. Homosexuality is not a permanent, unchangeable condition or behavior. Any who engage in homosexual acts, whether publically known of or not, are to be not treated any differently than all others, rather, their private sexual behavior should not be discussed, or dwelled upon by others, esp. in a casual manner. That is a matter that should rest with the individual engaged in homosexual behavior, the Lord, and the pastor who oversees his congregation and the spritual well-being of those in it. All those I know of that consider themselves to be gay, I am friends with, and am not at odds with. I do not discuss their sexual behaviors with them, or think about their homosexuality when talking to them. Only on rare occasions will I approach the subject, if I have known them for a very long time, and we are completely comfortable with each other and know each other very well.
I have also learned recently of a doctrinal discussion going on in the Lutheran Church regarding the gender and identity of God himself, and how God should be addressed. To the extent that this subject is being discussed at the present time, I will simply say this. I have never, not even once, read in any passage of scripture that God was a woman, or, to be referred to in some other way than simply how the Lord himself called upon God in the Lord's Prayer: "Our father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory. Forever, and ever, amen."
It really is this simple. If God is our father, he is male, a male deity, our spiritual father, the very same being whom Jesus prayed to almost 2000 years ago. This is not a minor point of doctrine. It is not debatable, and should be beyond question, what God's true gender is. Understanding the true identity and nature of God, with ever more clarity, depth of understanding and comprehension, is one of the things that we are all striving to do in this life. I can only hope that the Lutheran Church as a whole will hold true to the doctrines that Martin Luther believed in and that the Savior himself taught, even of the identity and character of God the Father.
In closing, I am absolutely certain of the reality and true character of God. He is my spiritual father, and I see him as, in a very real and literal way, the father of all of my fathers before me, stretching back to Adam. When I pray, I address God as my Heavenly Father. It will always be that way, because God never changes, no matter what people may think or say from time to time. I know this to be true.
The Bible
Posted by
Gary
at
November 15, 2010 08:48
Mr. Gessel,
Thank you for your comments. A few things in response. First, your scriptural interpretation is definitely debatable, see the end of my post above for the concluding statements of an ELCA study on the subject. I realize that you interpret scripture that way, but not everyone does and there is no way to ensure that everyone does. I, for example, have never interpreted scripture that way even though I have been studying scripture at the graduate level for several years. Secondly, that homosexuality is not a permanent condition seems to imply that it is not a part of a person but something that they do. But being attracted to a gender is part of one's identity; to say otherwise seems to me to assume that homosexual persons choose to be attracted to the same gender rather than vice versa. I have no idea why you think this, but I can tell you that most homosexual persons I meet agree that this choice would result in far fewer homosexual persons. As for the gender of God in scripture, you may be experiencing the patriarchal editing of the Hebrew Scriptures that was perpetrated in the translation of the KJV and persists to some extent today. If you can read in Hebrew, that is the best option; but otherwise I suggest consulting other translations, especially of prophetic books and the psalms. Without even going into this, here are some in English: http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/234/
Now, the doctrine of God the Father. That is the name of the first person of the Trinity, not the name of God. God the Father is Father of the Son, Jesus Christ. God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is the Creator of all that is, including you and I. One metaphor for this relationship is calling God our heavenly father, but this is not the same sense as the name God the Father, which refers only to the first person of the Trinity. Where you really go wrong is in saying "male, a male deity" when this is impossible since gender and sexuality (male AND female) was created by God as an image of God's self (see Genesis 1-3 for more on this). To call God male makes no sense and is not to take metaphorical descriptions of God as descriptions of a physical body that God is beyond. The part of God that is male, that is to say the person, is Jesus Christ, who was God the Son incarnate. But to assign maleness (to the exclusion of femaleness) to the Trinity is conceptually impossible, since all things (including femaleness) come from God.
It is true that God never changes. And yet God became incarnate in Jesus Christ. How is that not a change? Just some food for thought. :P Take care of yourself and keep reading scripture!
In Christ,
Gary
Thank you for your comments. A few things in response. First, your scriptural interpretation is definitely debatable, see the end of my post above for the concluding statements of an ELCA study on the subject. I realize that you interpret scripture that way, but not everyone does and there is no way to ensure that everyone does. I, for example, have never interpreted scripture that way even though I have been studying scripture at the graduate level for several years. Secondly, that homosexuality is not a permanent condition seems to imply that it is not a part of a person but something that they do. But being attracted to a gender is part of one's identity; to say otherwise seems to me to assume that homosexual persons choose to be attracted to the same gender rather than vice versa. I have no idea why you think this, but I can tell you that most homosexual persons I meet agree that this choice would result in far fewer homosexual persons. As for the gender of God in scripture, you may be experiencing the patriarchal editing of the Hebrew Scriptures that was perpetrated in the translation of the KJV and persists to some extent today. If you can read in Hebrew, that is the best option; but otherwise I suggest consulting other translations, especially of prophetic books and the psalms. Without even going into this, here are some in English: http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/234/
Now, the doctrine of God the Father. That is the name of the first person of the Trinity, not the name of God. God the Father is Father of the Son, Jesus Christ. God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is the Creator of all that is, including you and I. One metaphor for this relationship is calling God our heavenly father, but this is not the same sense as the name God the Father, which refers only to the first person of the Trinity. Where you really go wrong is in saying "male, a male deity" when this is impossible since gender and sexuality (male AND female) was created by God as an image of God's self (see Genesis 1-3 for more on this). To call God male makes no sense and is not to take metaphorical descriptions of God as descriptions of a physical body that God is beyond. The part of God that is male, that is to say the person, is Jesus Christ, who was God the Son incarnate. But to assign maleness (to the exclusion of femaleness) to the Trinity is conceptually impossible, since all things (including femaleness) come from God.
It is true that God never changes. And yet God became incarnate in Jesus Christ. How is that not a change? Just some food for thought. :P Take care of yourself and keep reading scripture!
In Christ,
Gary
8th Commandment, etc
Posted by
Peter
at
November 03, 2010 21:47
As Gary surmised, my point about bureaucrats being people too is an appeal to that Commandment, as well as all of the various "love x" commandments and such. To address readselerttoo's comments, I don't object to criticism itself, but in how it's being stated and applied. I also see these accusations here as not being directed against the organization itself, but the individuals within: the "church politicians" and "bureaucrats". If you're a church bureaucrat with little/no power to change things (which are the vast majority of ELCA employees as well as those "corrupt" folk working at "Higgins Road"), this kind of lashing out hurts. Given that this is exactly the kind of pain many dissidents feel, sympathy and understanding should be the order of the day, not hurting as we've been hurt. It is so hard that we can't do it on our own, but this is what Christ was crucified for. God breaks the cycle of violence by bringing life out of death, and through faith, God can break that cycle in our lives, too. We don't need to fear.
And concretely there isn't as much cause for fear as it may seem. Pastor/congregation conflicts are not new, and adding the homosexuality issue into the mix isn't going to seriously change the extent of conflicts. It might be a better acid test for some matches, but it's only one of many, many issues when calling a new pastor.
While concerning, a revised nature of the Trinity is not going to be shoved down anyone's throats. On one hand, I don't think the ELCA leadership likes the division and the problems controversial issues cause, which is why the homosexuality issue took 10+ years to come to a 'live and let live' resolution. On the other, people won't confess a changed creed. They'll use the one they know by heart. Even though we're supposed to, I have to really consciously think about it to leave out the "filioque" in the Nicene Creed. While I will be glad if this sudden focus on the nature of the Trinity lends more discussion to WHY certain formulations do not work, I think it's just a different approach to riling people up. For example, how many people here have actually been to a Lutheran service where one of herchurch's creeds were used? Out of those people, how many were at such a Lutheran service outside California?
As to firm numbers on the impact of the CWA decisions, we'll still have to wait to see the numbers for 2010 to be sure. As of 2009, there was no significant increase in departures over the earlier years [you can find one such chart of numbers on an ancient (August, I think) blog post of Bishop Barbie]
And concretely there isn't as much cause for fear as it may seem. Pastor/congregation conflicts are not new, and adding the homosexuality issue into the mix isn't going to seriously change the extent of conflicts. It might be a better acid test for some matches, but it's only one of many, many issues when calling a new pastor.
While concerning, a revised nature of the Trinity is not going to be shoved down anyone's throats. On one hand, I don't think the ELCA leadership likes the division and the problems controversial issues cause, which is why the homosexuality issue took 10+ years to come to a 'live and let live' resolution. On the other, people won't confess a changed creed. They'll use the one they know by heart. Even though we're supposed to, I have to really consciously think about it to leave out the "filioque" in the Nicene Creed. While I will be glad if this sudden focus on the nature of the Trinity lends more discussion to WHY certain formulations do not work, I think it's just a different approach to riling people up. For example, how many people here have actually been to a Lutheran service where one of herchurch's creeds were used? Out of those people, how many were at such a Lutheran service outside California?
As to firm numbers on the impact of the CWA decisions, we'll still have to wait to see the numbers for 2010 to be sure. As of 2009, there was no significant increase in departures over the earlier years [you can find one such chart of numbers on an ancient (August, I think) blog post of Bishop Barbie]
response to only one aspect
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 04, 2010 12:43
Peter writes: "I don't object to criticism itself, but in how it's being stated and applied."
Criticism is just that, criticism. Criticism includes public opinion-making and on the sinner-to-sinner plane this means self-expression within a political order which encourages self-expression no matter how it is "stated or applied."
On the other hand perhaps you are talking about courtesy in public discourse (a mark of God's law within civil matters which include the institutional church. Here the only operatives are retribution including the claims made upon others, ie. punishment and rewards). One can choose to operate less vindictively or less pejoratively however they do not have to. Public courtesy can be nurtured and, according to Aristotle, can be a healthy virtue of society. But societies do change their course through individual citizenry's choices and en mass as society through civil discourse and formed morality.
Bureaucrats by nature of their office serve the current "people in power" and therefore invite criticism from those who are not in power. Their office as bureaucrat invites criticism and criticism should be encouraged for free expression. Said bureaucrats have chosen their positions and therefore are objects for criticism as in any legal order.
As to putting the best light on our neighbor, as Luther teaches in the Small Catechism, the neighbor is the person who I encounter on a daily basis and not some amorphous image society has erected for the public eye.
As I stated before, the 10 Commandments for Christians are simply there for individual's to use diagnostically to inform them that they are sinners and not persevere as presumptuous saints.
The 10 Commandments are not to be used toward their own purpose but to always point the sinner to how God feels about us in the next section to the catechism, that is, the Apostles Creed.
Criticism is just that, criticism. Criticism includes public opinion-making and on the sinner-to-sinner plane this means self-expression within a political order which encourages self-expression no matter how it is "stated or applied."
On the other hand perhaps you are talking about courtesy in public discourse (a mark of God's law within civil matters which include the institutional church. Here the only operatives are retribution including the claims made upon others, ie. punishment and rewards). One can choose to operate less vindictively or less pejoratively however they do not have to. Public courtesy can be nurtured and, according to Aristotle, can be a healthy virtue of society. But societies do change their course through individual citizenry's choices and en mass as society through civil discourse and formed morality.
Bureaucrats by nature of their office serve the current "people in power" and therefore invite criticism from those who are not in power. Their office as bureaucrat invites criticism and criticism should be encouraged for free expression. Said bureaucrats have chosen their positions and therefore are objects for criticism as in any legal order.
As to putting the best light on our neighbor, as Luther teaches in the Small Catechism, the neighbor is the person who I encounter on a daily basis and not some amorphous image society has erected for the public eye.
As I stated before, the 10 Commandments for Christians are simply there for individual's to use diagnostically to inform them that they are sinners and not persevere as presumptuous saints.
The 10 Commandments are not to be used toward their own purpose but to always point the sinner to how God feels about us in the next section to the catechism, that is, the Apostles Creed.
criticism
Posted by
Peter
at
November 04, 2010 19:14
readselerttoo writes:
"Criticism is just that, criticism. Criticism includes public opinion-making and on the sinner-to-sinner plane this means self-expression within a political order which encourages self-expression no matter how it is "stated or applied.""
Sending mail bombs to the church offices on Higgins Rd would also be a form of self-expression. Much like the way in which Dr Braaten's letter is phrased, such self-expression is destructive both to the one receiving the criticism and the one so expressing the criticism.
Furthermore, I don't think he's hitting quite the right target. Attacking all of the bureaucrats together on account of one editor means he's hitting way more bystanders than needed. I would also quibble and say that the bureaucrats by definition serve the institution, not the people running the institution directly. This is important because Mick's charges of corruption are incorrect, especially when leveled broadly against anyone and everyone with any churchly authority. To a very large extent, the bureaucrats are doing their jobs with all the vigor Luther enjoins and it isn't those jobs that are the issue, but the stance of the institution. I think it is important that as an organizer of the conference, Dr Braaten tells the editor of The Lutheran that he was very hurt by the decision not to cover the theological conference and that he felt the theological conference was of such an important character that it should have been covered even if WELS or the LCMS had put it on.
"Criticism is just that, criticism. Criticism includes public opinion-making and on the sinner-to-sinner plane this means self-expression within a political order which encourages self-expression no matter how it is "stated or applied.""
Sending mail bombs to the church offices on Higgins Rd would also be a form of self-expression. Much like the way in which Dr Braaten's letter is phrased, such self-expression is destructive both to the one receiving the criticism and the one so expressing the criticism.
Furthermore, I don't think he's hitting quite the right target. Attacking all of the bureaucrats together on account of one editor means he's hitting way more bystanders than needed. I would also quibble and say that the bureaucrats by definition serve the institution, not the people running the institution directly. This is important because Mick's charges of corruption are incorrect, especially when leveled broadly against anyone and everyone with any churchly authority. To a very large extent, the bureaucrats are doing their jobs with all the vigor Luther enjoins and it isn't those jobs that are the issue, but the stance of the institution. I think it is important that as an organizer of the conference, Dr Braaten tells the editor of The Lutheran that he was very hurt by the decision not to cover the theological conference and that he felt the theological conference was of such an important character that it should have been covered even if WELS or the LCMS had put it on.
Is Carl Braaten a reference point of ELCA shift?
Posted by
Ben Unseth
at
November 14, 2010 00:51
I'm not sure that I have this correct, but here's one observation: In seminary and in his early ministry, Carl Braaten seemed a leader in the liberal wing of American Lutheranism. Without shifting personally, he finds himself on the conservative side of the ELCA. If this is true, what does this say of the ELCA's shift?
http://benjaminunseth.wordpress.com
http://benjaminunseth.wordpress.com
Expanding Categories
Posted by
Gary
at
November 16, 2010 16:03
Dear Mr. Unseth,
I only wish to point out that those who disagree with Braaten in the matter of homosexual ordination do not necessarily disagree with him on everything. A very good, and actively homosexual, friend of mine enjoys Braaten's earlier work and even says that recent work is useful. Using this one issue as a barometer of some kind of "liberal/conservative scale" requires a false dichotomy and a false definition of those categories. What might be more instructive is the expansion of the categories of your question: If Braaten was condemned by the ELCA culture in the beginning of his career, or at least considered in error, and the reverse is now the case, what does THAT say of the ELCA's shift?
In Christ,
Gary
I only wish to point out that those who disagree with Braaten in the matter of homosexual ordination do not necessarily disagree with him on everything. A very good, and actively homosexual, friend of mine enjoys Braaten's earlier work and even says that recent work is useful. Using this one issue as a barometer of some kind of "liberal/conservative scale" requires a false dichotomy and a false definition of those categories. What might be more instructive is the expansion of the categories of your question: If Braaten was condemned by the ELCA culture in the beginning of his career, or at least considered in error, and the reverse is now the case, what does THAT say of the ELCA's shift?
In Christ,
Gary
Misunderstanding each other?
Posted by
Ben Unseth
at
November 18, 2010 05:44
We may be misunderstanding each other. Braaten was celebrated early in his career by ELCA (ELC, ALC & LCA) culture. Regarding today, I was not trying to isolate his stance on homosexuality, but his broader theological stance. I'm asking if a young theological progressive has become a mature conservative without personally shifting in a more conservative direction.
Explaining the Higgins Rd Group's Willingness to Jeopardize the Church
Posted by
Don Struckmeyer
at
January 26, 2011 09:11
Explaining the Willingness of the ELCA’s Higgins Road Group to Jeopardize the Church:
By 2009, my wife and I had been life-long members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which is the largest denomination of Lutheranism with about 5 million members in America. It is also the most liberal of the major Lutheran Churches. My wife’s family, which is one-hundred percent Norwegian, has probably been Lutheran since the Church first appeared in Norway. This multi-generational connection to the Lutheran Church isn’t unusual; the same can probably be said for several other Christian denominations. So, for generations average Americans have supported the ELCA and its predecessors with money, attendance at services, and through their time as teachers, board member etc. It is fair to say the church did not belong to the clergy or its leadership, but belonged to the members, who while having other commitments such as jobs and families, spent a great deal of their time supporting the church.
Into this setting of long-term personal commitments, progressivism reared its ugly head during 2009. As a result, the future of the ELCA has come into question. The unfortunate situation resulted from the liberal leadership seeing their “progressive vision” for creating a more just world as the ultimate purpose of the church rather than the church’s good works. In that year, the liberal clergy and progressive members of the ELCA decided that their “vision” included equating homosexual marriage/relationships with heterosexual marriage. A church-wide policy, adopted by the ELCA not many years before, allowed the ordination of a homosexual as long as the candidate committed themselves to celibacy. The specific change would be, for the first time, to allow homosexual ministers, who were engaging in homosexual activities, to be ordained with the full knowledge they were active homosexuals.
There are, of course, arguments for and against blessing and recognizing homosexual marriages and thereby equating those relationships with heterosexual marriages. But the controversy itself was not what I, as a traditionalist, found the most striking aspect of an unfortunate situation. What amazed me was the willingness of the progressive clergy and leadership (The Higgins Road Group) to jeopardize, in an underhanded way, the good work of the church and its very future in exchange for realizing their progressive vision. The process the Higgins Group used to achieve their goal was “dishonorable” in several ways: i) they purposefully ignored the view of a majority of the members, ii) they manipulated the process to avoid barriers put in place by the church’s constitution, and iii) they were not willing to openly discuss, with their congregations, their plan for ordaining practicing gays for fear that more traditional members would leave. That lack of open discussion also set up the distasteful situation in which the majority of members were taken unaware that the church was about to take an immanent and drastic step in recognizing homosexual marriage at the 2009 CWA, a step that most members did not want to take. That lack of open discussion resulted in many of the ELCA clergy failing their duty to inform their members of the potential break with historic Christian beliefs.
To support my assertion that the ELCA progressives acted “dishonorably” in pushing their agenda within the church, I need to provide a few specifics. First, the progressives used an undemocratic body, the Church Wide Assembly (CWA), as the authority for overturning two thousand years of Christian tradition and ignoring the direct admonition by the Scriptures to not condone homosexual activity. While the CWA is an elected body, it most assuredly is not democratic organ. The CWA representatives are nominated and elected without providing any indication back to the congregations as to how they might vote on a controversial issue. In other words, liberal clergy could nominate “like-minded” candidates without the lay members of the church being aware of how that member might exercise the position of ultimate authority within the church. It reminds of an old political saying from Chicago: “Your free to elect whoever you want as long as I nominate the candidates.” This undemocratic process may be legitimate for normal church business, but using it as the authority for speaking for the Church on controversial social issues and Christian doctrine is not legitimate, especially when the issue is contrary to two thousand years of Christian tradition, opposes clear scripture, and is opposed to majority views of the rest of Christendom. In other words, the collective view of the majority of the members of the ELCA, members who, as I pointed out above, have supported the church for generations, was locked out of the process through the use of the CWA as the agent for imposing the progressive view on the rest of the church. I often wonder, if this is the way the progressives would have liked to have been treated if the situation was reversed?
Second, in 2005, the leadership authorized an opinion survey of the church-wide membership concerning the controversial issue. Despite the biased wording of the poll for acceptance, the majority of ELCA members clearly expressed their opposition to ordaining practicing gay clergy. The dishonor comes into play because the Higgins Road Group decided that there shouldn’t be another poll of the membership even though the CWA would be acting on the controversial issue in 2009.
Third, the Higgins Road Group side stepped the provisions of the ELCA’s constitution meant to prevent the issuance of controversial social positions, in the name of the church, without a clear consensus within the church. This was accomplished by designating the decision to ordain practicing homosexuals as an operational change rather than a social statement of some controversy. As an operational change, approval in the CWA would only take a majority vote. Adherence to the Church’s Constitution would require the approval of a social statement by a two-thirds supermajority. Even the majority of the ELCA’s Bishops strongly recommended that if such a controversial issue were to be tackled, consensus in the church should be demonstrated by approval through a super-majority. The dishonorable act in this instance was, of course, the leadership’s manipulation of the process to avoid the requirement, to demonstrate a consensus, embodied by the super-majority provision in the ELCA’s constitution.
So, why would educated, dedicated progressives be willing to cause a schism within a church over an issue that reasonable people can disagree? Why risk the very future of the church, the loss of membership, and the loss of the ability to help the poor all over the world in the name of their progressive “vision”? One obvious answer is that they saw the fulfillment of their vision as more important than the cohesion and the work of the church. They also saw their promotion of perceived equality for the homosexual community as justifying their shameful treatment of the majority of the members of the church who disagreed with them. The old saw fits the situation well. In their eyes, “The end justified the means.”
However, I think there is a more comprehensive answer as to why the progressives in the ELCA seemed so dedicated to their cause. I believe to a progressive the “life purpose” of striving for a just and equitable world supersedes all other aspects of their person including their profession and even the standards of fairness, objectivity, and civility that they profess to abide by. So, educated clergy were willing to lead their church off a cliff in order to achieve their “vision” of how equality should be applied in our society. One can only conclude, considering the dire repercussions of their action, the progressives within the ELCA did not believe there could possibly be legitimate reasons for opposing their position that we should equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual marriages. As William Bennett, the former Secretary of Education, has said, progressives often act with an “insufferable sense of moral superiority.” I’m afraid that was part of the downfall of the ELCA, an arrogance that surpasses all understanding.
By 2009, my wife and I had been life-long members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which is the largest denomination of Lutheranism with about 5 million members in America. It is also the most liberal of the major Lutheran Churches. My wife’s family, which is one-hundred percent Norwegian, has probably been Lutheran since the Church first appeared in Norway. This multi-generational connection to the Lutheran Church isn’t unusual; the same can probably be said for several other Christian denominations. So, for generations average Americans have supported the ELCA and its predecessors with money, attendance at services, and through their time as teachers, board member etc. It is fair to say the church did not belong to the clergy or its leadership, but belonged to the members, who while having other commitments such as jobs and families, spent a great deal of their time supporting the church.
Into this setting of long-term personal commitments, progressivism reared its ugly head during 2009. As a result, the future of the ELCA has come into question. The unfortunate situation resulted from the liberal leadership seeing their “progressive vision” for creating a more just world as the ultimate purpose of the church rather than the church’s good works. In that year, the liberal clergy and progressive members of the ELCA decided that their “vision” included equating homosexual marriage/relationships with heterosexual marriage. A church-wide policy, adopted by the ELCA not many years before, allowed the ordination of a homosexual as long as the candidate committed themselves to celibacy. The specific change would be, for the first time, to allow homosexual ministers, who were engaging in homosexual activities, to be ordained with the full knowledge they were active homosexuals.
There are, of course, arguments for and against blessing and recognizing homosexual marriages and thereby equating those relationships with heterosexual marriages. But the controversy itself was not what I, as a traditionalist, found the most striking aspect of an unfortunate situation. What amazed me was the willingness of the progressive clergy and leadership (The Higgins Road Group) to jeopardize, in an underhanded way, the good work of the church and its very future in exchange for realizing their progressive vision. The process the Higgins Group used to achieve their goal was “dishonorable” in several ways: i) they purposefully ignored the view of a majority of the members, ii) they manipulated the process to avoid barriers put in place by the church’s constitution, and iii) they were not willing to openly discuss, with their congregations, their plan for ordaining practicing gays for fear that more traditional members would leave. That lack of open discussion also set up the distasteful situation in which the majority of members were taken unaware that the church was about to take an immanent and drastic step in recognizing homosexual marriage at the 2009 CWA, a step that most members did not want to take. That lack of open discussion resulted in many of the ELCA clergy failing their duty to inform their members of the potential break with historic Christian beliefs.
To support my assertion that the ELCA progressives acted “dishonorably” in pushing their agenda within the church, I need to provide a few specifics. First, the progressives used an undemocratic body, the Church Wide Assembly (CWA), as the authority for overturning two thousand years of Christian tradition and ignoring the direct admonition by the Scriptures to not condone homosexual activity. While the CWA is an elected body, it most assuredly is not democratic organ. The CWA representatives are nominated and elected without providing any indication back to the congregations as to how they might vote on a controversial issue. In other words, liberal clergy could nominate “like-minded” candidates without the lay members of the church being aware of how that member might exercise the position of ultimate authority within the church. It reminds of an old political saying from Chicago: “Your free to elect whoever you want as long as I nominate the candidates.” This undemocratic process may be legitimate for normal church business, but using it as the authority for speaking for the Church on controversial social issues and Christian doctrine is not legitimate, especially when the issue is contrary to two thousand years of Christian tradition, opposes clear scripture, and is opposed to majority views of the rest of Christendom. In other words, the collective view of the majority of the members of the ELCA, members who, as I pointed out above, have supported the church for generations, was locked out of the process through the use of the CWA as the agent for imposing the progressive view on the rest of the church. I often wonder, if this is the way the progressives would have liked to have been treated if the situation was reversed?
Second, in 2005, the leadership authorized an opinion survey of the church-wide membership concerning the controversial issue. Despite the biased wording of the poll for acceptance, the majority of ELCA members clearly expressed their opposition to ordaining practicing gay clergy. The dishonor comes into play because the Higgins Road Group decided that there shouldn’t be another poll of the membership even though the CWA would be acting on the controversial issue in 2009.
Third, the Higgins Road Group side stepped the provisions of the ELCA’s constitution meant to prevent the issuance of controversial social positions, in the name of the church, without a clear consensus within the church. This was accomplished by designating the decision to ordain practicing homosexuals as an operational change rather than a social statement of some controversy. As an operational change, approval in the CWA would only take a majority vote. Adherence to the Church’s Constitution would require the approval of a social statement by a two-thirds supermajority. Even the majority of the ELCA’s Bishops strongly recommended that if such a controversial issue were to be tackled, consensus in the church should be demonstrated by approval through a super-majority. The dishonorable act in this instance was, of course, the leadership’s manipulation of the process to avoid the requirement, to demonstrate a consensus, embodied by the super-majority provision in the ELCA’s constitution.
So, why would educated, dedicated progressives be willing to cause a schism within a church over an issue that reasonable people can disagree? Why risk the very future of the church, the loss of membership, and the loss of the ability to help the poor all over the world in the name of their progressive “vision”? One obvious answer is that they saw the fulfillment of their vision as more important than the cohesion and the work of the church. They also saw their promotion of perceived equality for the homosexual community as justifying their shameful treatment of the majority of the members of the church who disagreed with them. The old saw fits the situation well. In their eyes, “The end justified the means.”
However, I think there is a more comprehensive answer as to why the progressives in the ELCA seemed so dedicated to their cause. I believe to a progressive the “life purpose” of striving for a just and equitable world supersedes all other aspects of their person including their profession and even the standards of fairness, objectivity, and civility that they profess to abide by. So, educated clergy were willing to lead their church off a cliff in order to achieve their “vision” of how equality should be applied in our society. One can only conclude, considering the dire repercussions of their action, the progressives within the ELCA did not believe there could possibly be legitimate reasons for opposing their position that we should equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual marriages. As William Bennett, the former Secretary of Education, has said, progressives often act with an “insufferable sense of moral superiority.” I’m afraid that was part of the downfall of the ELCA, an arrogance that surpasses all understanding.
The Lutheran and ELCA bureaucracy