Document Actions
A House Divided Will Not Stand
by
Sarah Wilson
—
July 12, 2009
Reports from the various synod assemblies make for fascinating reading (many thanks to Word Alone for providing the results online). To highlight some tidbits: After the Western Iowa synod called for a super majority vote at CWA, it resolved that “the Western Iowa Synod affirms marriage as a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman” but then defeated a memorial asking the CWA assembly to do the same. Southwestern Texas defeated—but not by much (144 to 215)—a resolution “requesting the formation of a commission to study and develop plans for the formation of a new Lutheran church from within the ELCA," while the West Virginia–West Maryland Synod tabled a resolution that the ELCA be dissolved...
Reports from the various synod assemblies make for fascinating reading (many thanks to Word Alone for providing the results online). To highlight some tidbits:
After the Western Iowa synod called for a super majority vote at CWA, it resolved that “the Western Iowa Synod affirms marriage as a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman” but then defeated a memorial asking the CWA assembly to do the same.
Southwestern Texas defeated—but not by much (144 to 215)—a resolution “requesting the formation of a commission to study and develop plans for the formation of a new Lutheran church from within the ELCA," while the West Virginia–West Maryland Synod tabled a resolution that the ELCA be dissolved.
The Northwestern Synod of Wisconsin “postponed indefinitely” a memorial affirming that “the witness of scripture that Jesus is the only savior and would ask the 2009 churchwide assembly to keep such an important and necessary proclamation at the heart of its public statements and teaching documents and all it does in planning for mission.”
After the Southwest California synod resolved to accept both the social statement and the ministry policy recommendations, “a resolution to require a two-thirds vote for changes in standards for rostered leaders was declared out of order.”
Peruse the results for yourself and some trends emerge.
First, the extremes. Some synods vote across the board in favor of keeping the vote at 50%, accepting the Sexuality Study, and accepting the ministry policy recommendations. Other synods vote across the board to make the vote 2/3 and reject both statement and recommendations. A not inconsiderable number have some mixture of the two.
Second, the confusion. Not infrequently the resolutions are at odds with each other (like the magnificent example of the Western Iowa Synod above).
Third, the closeness of the votes. When the numbers are reported at all, they often reveal a difference of just a handful of people. Ten votes the other way would have changed things. So we either have synods overwhelmingly on one side or the other (and thus at odds with each across synodical boundaries), or seriously divided within.
Forgive me for the equivalent of an internet scream, but WHY ARE WE VOTING ON THIS AT CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY THIS YEAR?! The vote one way or another is asking for the rending of our ecumenical relationships, the rending of the ELCA, the rending of synods, the rending of congregations, and probably in the end the rending of families and friendships too. If there is any doubt about this, just look to the Anglican communion. That’s where we’re headed—and for us too, the repercussions will not be only local, but global.
People are tired of this. They want it to be over. I suspect a great number of the votes in favor of the sexuality study are in disguise votes not to have to review another sexuality study and all the grief that will come of it. In the situation as it stands, that might not be the worst thing in the world. But voting on this issue at all—yes or no—is only going to exacerbate the crumbling of this house. Stop the madness! Call for a moratorium. We are not ready for this.
Mendacity
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
July 12, 2009 19:20
I once naively thought that you could have a big tent within a congregation. And those who were most vociferous about the big tent were actually just biding their time until they got what they wanted. There is so much mendacity in all of this big tent language. What people on the left side of this issue want is for the ELCA to be the United Church of Christ. If you look at the UCC, they have continued to shrink over the years. Those who favor the change, in most instances, already have a de facto denial of the status quo especially in our most urban synods. So, thank you, but no, the big tent does and will not work. Let's stop pretending that it is anything other than a ploy to change policies to what the left actually want to be the new status quo.
Mendacity
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
July 12, 2009 19:48
As one who has used the "big tent" language, I point out that your characterization of it as "mendacity" is particularly pejorative regarding my participation in an open discussion. I was hoping the discussion could rise above that. I will note, however, from the perspective of hermeneutics, that those who would want to impose such strict, conservative, legalistic constructions on scriptural texts as involving this homosexuality issue need to apply consistently that same conservative standard when it comes to other issues, such as divorce, for example, as found in Mark 10:2-12, and I conscientiously aver such interpretative distinctions as a faithful member at St. Martin's Luthran Church in Austin, Texas.
Mendacity
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
July 12, 2009 23:12
Yes, the ad hominem fallacy continues to be the favorite tool for trying to silence those with whom one disagrees. Such rhetorical approaches fail logically and are a weak way of arguing.
Because Scripture is a whole and not a series of atomized texts, one has to read all the texts having to do with divorce and remarriage. And then it might be helpful to spend some time working through "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" and "Divorce and Remarriage in the Church" both by David Instone-Brewer a scholar focusing on rabbinic texts in the first century AD to better grasp context. One can't simply point to Mark's Gospel or some earlier documents from which he draws to say, "Ah, here, we have the original Jesus and all other texts have lesser authority." But then Brevard Childs, no fundamentalist, has so much more adequately described canonical criticism.
Mendacity is indeed a right and proper word for describing appeals to the "big tent" when, in fact, what one wants to do is to believe, teach, and confess a different gospel, as Dr. Hinlicky as so eloquently described elsewhere on this site.
Because Scripture is a whole and not a series of atomized texts, one has to read all the texts having to do with divorce and remarriage. And then it might be helpful to spend some time working through "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" and "Divorce and Remarriage in the Church" both by David Instone-Brewer a scholar focusing on rabbinic texts in the first century AD to better grasp context. One can't simply point to Mark's Gospel or some earlier documents from which he draws to say, "Ah, here, we have the original Jesus and all other texts have lesser authority." But then Brevard Childs, no fundamentalist, has so much more adequately described canonical criticism.
Mendacity is indeed a right and proper word for describing appeals to the "big tent" when, in fact, what one wants to do is to believe, teach, and confess a different gospel, as Dr. Hinlicky as so eloquently described elsewhere on this site.
Reply to Kurt
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 13, 2009 00:07
I have already argued on this site that it is unconscionable for "conservatives" to continue to argue against homosexual ordination as long as they don't also put into effect scriptural teaching regarding divorced pastors. You are quite right about that.
Divorce
Posted by
RS
at
July 13, 2009 09:15
Sarah,
I've followed with interest your repeated insistence that scriptural teaching regarding divorced pastors must also be re-enforced for the ELCA's sexual ethics to have any integrity.
One question has always bothered me about the issue of divorced pastors/bishops, and I wonder if you could share your thoughts. It seems to me that divorce is not always a matter of choice on the part of both parties. I know of numerous cases in which a pastor's spouse simply demanded an end to the marriage - no willingness for reconciliation, no "trial separation," just divorce. In several cases, this was very much against the pastor's wishes - as I would put it, divorce was being done TO the pastor and not BY the pastor, even though legally the pastor's name would have to be on the final paperwork.
What about pastors/bishops pursuing effective ministry who divorce, not because they want to, but because their spouses are no longer willing to be married? Is discipline really appropriate in those cases? It seems to me that having a spouse leave you and end a marriage which you held dear is devastating enough without having your ministry opportunities structurally limited as a consequence.
What do you think?
I've followed with interest your repeated insistence that scriptural teaching regarding divorced pastors must also be re-enforced for the ELCA's sexual ethics to have any integrity.
One question has always bothered me about the issue of divorced pastors/bishops, and I wonder if you could share your thoughts. It seems to me that divorce is not always a matter of choice on the part of both parties. I know of numerous cases in which a pastor's spouse simply demanded an end to the marriage - no willingness for reconciliation, no "trial separation," just divorce. In several cases, this was very much against the pastor's wishes - as I would put it, divorce was being done TO the pastor and not BY the pastor, even though legally the pastor's name would have to be on the final paperwork.
What about pastors/bishops pursuing effective ministry who divorce, not because they want to, but because their spouses are no longer willing to be married? Is discipline really appropriate in those cases? It seems to me that having a spouse leave you and end a marriage which you held dear is devastating enough without having your ministry opportunities structurally limited as a consequence.
What do you think?
The other way around
Posted by
Lutheranistic
at
July 14, 2009 18:14
As a victim of clergy sexual misconduct, I can state, as I have elsewhere on this board, that the ELCA cares not one whit about how their clergy behave, who is hurt, or how congregations are impacted. Yes, the wounds are still open a little, but I don't think that invalidates the point. I really don't think that the GLBT lobby understands how little they are asking for.
Reply to RS
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 14, 2009 23:54
This should be a matter for much wider discussion. The three things I would suggest for beginning consideration: 1) There are actually NT standard for when divorce is permissible (such as adultery), and it is possible that sheer abandonment of one spouse by the other would qualify. 2) There is a canon law tradition in European Lutheran churches that have tried to outline the acceptable circumstances of divorce, which would be a good resource for us. 3) The really tricky part in these judgment calls is assigning blame. There are certainly times when, it seems to me, divorce is largely the fault of one side, but it's impossible to know what you're not knowing about a marriage.
No-Fault Divorce
Posted by
Jeff Meyer
at
July 24, 2009 00:44
The problem we're struggling with is partly the consequence of no-fault divorce. There's lots of pastors out there whose spouses just leave, and they can, no looking back. For the church to swing around and hit that pastor with suspension or defrocking whatever would be heartless. I think Dr. Wilson speaks to that problem well enough in her response . . . although I guess there's a debate over what Jesus meant by adultery. Some say it's referring to relationships considered incestual at that time. I would say abandonment, as Wilson implies, certainly qualifies for the exception Jesus offers, as it is a different embodiment of the same disaffection that inspires adultery. Of course, just because Jesus says you CAN get a divorce for adultery doesn't mean you have to, I've seen some of that, too, people living with adulterers for years out of commitment to their promises.
Unconscionable
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
July 13, 2009 22:56
Unconscionable for divorced and remarried pastors to speak God’s Word, I think not. Perhaps there are those unrepentant serial monogamists out there hiding in clerical collars, but I have yet to meet one. Five years sleeping alone, but not really sleeping well, pondering what went wrong and why, what could have be done and what was left undone night after night. Being told that whatever did or did not transpire legally that there was no going back to living as husband and wife. Watching a child twist in the wind the child wondering why the child was not worthy of having a mother remain and the father wondering why also. Guilt and shame, anger and occasional rage at the refusal to keep promises and the refusal to attempt to fix what was broken. All of that is part of my story as a repentant divorced pastor who could not change the story. Seven years later I am happily married, in what our Roman Catholic friends would call a sacramental marriage unlike the first marriage. But now it’s unconscionable to speak the Word of God?
I think of the woman who knew her soon to be husband had been sexually active with other men, but he promised her that he had chosen her and no others…only later to say with encouragement of many…”I change my mind. I want a man instead.” I think of the young woman who was so naïve she didn’t know why her husband wouldn’t touch her for all the years of her marriage but she had made vows that he never kept, all the while mugging for the cameras as a devoted husband. Did he like men or children or was he simply incapable of making a commitment? Most of us would think of either of these women as the betrayed party, but if they were pastors, it would be unconscionable for them to speak the Word of God?
Who, then, may speak God’s Word? Author Susan Howatch in her novels of the British church captured well the difference between the glittering clerical image and the sinful saints that preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Where do you draw the line? What makes one the husband of one wife? The traditional Roman answer is clerical celibacy. The traditional Orthodox answer is episcopal celibacy. But, then, how do we really know the difference between the glittering image and sinful saint beneath? The Lord Jesus calls an adulterer the person who looks at another with lust. Paul tells us that sleeping with a prostitute or any one for that matter makes a marriage. So, pray tell, how will we ever know the difference between the glittering image and sinful saint? And who will ever be able to speak the Word of God but broken people in collars!
The issue is not gay versus straight or even how to calculate who has never committed adultery in thought, word, or deed…doubtless more challenging than calculating the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. The issue is: what does God’s Word have to say to sinners? Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, friend of sinners. With a long line of far more eloquent and far more earth-shaking preachers of God’s Word, I’ll keep preaching “No” to sin and “Yes” to sinners, unconscionable or not!
I think of the woman who knew her soon to be husband had been sexually active with other men, but he promised her that he had chosen her and no others…only later to say with encouragement of many…”I change my mind. I want a man instead.” I think of the young woman who was so naïve she didn’t know why her husband wouldn’t touch her for all the years of her marriage but she had made vows that he never kept, all the while mugging for the cameras as a devoted husband. Did he like men or children or was he simply incapable of making a commitment? Most of us would think of either of these women as the betrayed party, but if they were pastors, it would be unconscionable for them to speak the Word of God?
Who, then, may speak God’s Word? Author Susan Howatch in her novels of the British church captured well the difference between the glittering clerical image and the sinful saints that preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Where do you draw the line? What makes one the husband of one wife? The traditional Roman answer is clerical celibacy. The traditional Orthodox answer is episcopal celibacy. But, then, how do we really know the difference between the glittering image and sinful saint beneath? The Lord Jesus calls an adulterer the person who looks at another with lust. Paul tells us that sleeping with a prostitute or any one for that matter makes a marriage. So, pray tell, how will we ever know the difference between the glittering image and sinful saint? And who will ever be able to speak the Word of God but broken people in collars!
The issue is not gay versus straight or even how to calculate who has never committed adultery in thought, word, or deed…doubtless more challenging than calculating the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. The issue is: what does God’s Word have to say to sinners? Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, friend of sinners. With a long line of far more eloquent and far more earth-shaking preachers of God’s Word, I’ll keep preaching “No” to sin and “Yes” to sinners, unconscionable or not!
Reply to Zumwalt
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 14, 2009 23:58
You misunderstood me. I didn't say it was unconscionable for divorced pastors to speak the Wordo of God. I said it was unconscionable to enact an ecclesial policy against homosexuals on the grounds of their sexuality not being in line with the Scriptural standard without also revisiting and revising the policy regarding divorced pastors; otherwise it is simple bigotry against homosexuals and conveniently overlooking heterosexuals sins. Below I posted a further explanation of my views on the issue of divorced pastors. I appreciate your eloquent defense of your own situation, but I don't see the scriptural basis for it clearly expressed, which I think you otherwise expect, judging from your other posts on this site.
Response to Wilson
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
July 15, 2009 11:25
Thank you for your clarification. I am not looking to justify myself or the sin of divorce. Divorce, whatever the occasion, always falls short of God's good and gracious will. I was answering that a scripturally faithful way of dealing with the issue is possible.
That you disagree with the Instone-Brewer view of Jesus on divorce and remarriage is certainly your prerogative. I think the whole issue of divorce and remarriage for Lutheran Christians ought to be revisited and addressed. As I believe I indicated in a much earlier post on the same issue, the LCMS has produced an excellent pastoral document on the issue. It allows the possibility of confession and forgiveness to actually say something to the sin of divorce by pastors and others.
The Roman Catholic annulment process attempts to distinguish pastorally between marriages that reflect God's faithfulness to His bride and those in which one spouse (or both) is incapable of making and enacting solemn vows of faithfulness. The Orthodox have a different way of dealing with divorce. Lutherans offer little clarity on the matter.
As you know, western rite Roman priests are, with a few notable exceptions, bound to vows of celibacy. Orthodox clergy may marry only once prior to ordination to the priesthood and never again.
Given our penchant for congregationalism, our "every pastor a pope" mentality, and general incoherency in matters ecumenical, it is no wonder that we can't seem to say much about divorce and remarriage.
I appreciate the LCMS' clarity. How refreshing compared to our ELCA "we are not all of one mind" approach to the current subject of sexuality.
That you disagree with the Instone-Brewer view of Jesus on divorce and remarriage is certainly your prerogative. I think the whole issue of divorce and remarriage for Lutheran Christians ought to be revisited and addressed. As I believe I indicated in a much earlier post on the same issue, the LCMS has produced an excellent pastoral document on the issue. It allows the possibility of confession and forgiveness to actually say something to the sin of divorce by pastors and others.
The Roman Catholic annulment process attempts to distinguish pastorally between marriages that reflect God's faithfulness to His bride and those in which one spouse (or both) is incapable of making and enacting solemn vows of faithfulness. The Orthodox have a different way of dealing with divorce. Lutherans offer little clarity on the matter.
As you know, western rite Roman priests are, with a few notable exceptions, bound to vows of celibacy. Orthodox clergy may marry only once prior to ordination to the priesthood and never again.
Given our penchant for congregationalism, our "every pastor a pope" mentality, and general incoherency in matters ecumenical, it is no wonder that we can't seem to say much about divorce and remarriage.
I appreciate the LCMS' clarity. How refreshing compared to our ELCA "we are not all of one mind" approach to the current subject of sexuality.
Reply to Sam 2
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 15, 2009 12:31
Dear Sam,
I have not said one way or another what I think about the study you refer to; I don't know it and have never read it. I indicated elsewhere on here that I believe there are NT guidelines for permissible divorce and canon law tradition in other Lutheran churches for dealing with it. I agree with you that the ELCA has no clarity on the issue at all, and I think this absolutely must be addressed as well.
I have not said one way or another what I think about the study you refer to; I don't know it and have never read it. I indicated elsewhere on here that I believe there are NT guidelines for permissible divorce and canon law tradition in other Lutheran churches for dealing with it. I agree with you that the ELCA has no clarity on the issue at all, and I think this absolutely must be addressed as well.
Reply to Kurt 2
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 13, 2009 01:19
I infer from what you said (and from what I have heard elsewhere from those expressing similar views) that for you, "welcome" means "regarding homosexuality as a gift of God and therefore blessing it." If this is what you mean by welcome, then you are correct, I cannot "welcome" homosexuals in the church. But this is what I mean by welcome: "one sinner joyfully showing another where she found forgiveness of all of her sins, thereby becoming capable of repenting of them." In that sense, I do welcome homosexuals in the church. The question is not whether I welcome, but whether my welcome is wanted.
After the repentence
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
July 13, 2009 08:33
Yes, but after the welcome, after the repentence, which is important for ALL sinners, is it your position that these "welcome" homosexuals should continue to be welcome in the church if they continue to maintain their same, committed and monogamous relationships?
Church Discipline
Posted by
Jack Kilcrease
at
July 13, 2009 15:54
Kurt,
I am of course not answering for Dr. Wilson, but rather for myself. People who repent and then continue to sin publically must face Church discipline. Jesus is quite clear about this is Matthew 18. The entire point is of course not to be a "meanie," but rather to bring forth true repentance and faith. Monogamous homosexual relationship are as much a sin as other kinds- therefore they must be repented of and ended if full communion with the visible Church is going to occur.
I of course realize that the power of the keys is virtually never used in the ELCA anymore- but it's something that should be looked into in light of it being one of the functions of the office of ministry and essential to the mission of the Church.
I am of course not answering for Dr. Wilson, but rather for myself. People who repent and then continue to sin publically must face Church discipline. Jesus is quite clear about this is Matthew 18. The entire point is of course not to be a "meanie," but rather to bring forth true repentance and faith. Monogamous homosexual relationship are as much a sin as other kinds- therefore they must be repented of and ended if full communion with the visible Church is going to occur.
I of course realize that the power of the keys is virtually never used in the ELCA anymore- but it's something that should be looked into in light of it being one of the functions of the office of ministry and essential to the mission of the Church.
Reply to Kurt 3
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 15, 2009 00:04
Again, this is something that should be a matter of wide discussion, not personal opinion. I will say that as a pastor there was any number of sins I had to tolerate, from the classic kind of "open scandal" (though in our society hardly scandalous anymore) to the well-concealed pharisaical kind. The latter were usually more destructive. I came to the conclusion that every congregation is a mission to make Christians, not simply encourage along people who are already Christians. So when it comes to discipline, I would welcome everyone and exhort them to greater fidelity, in whatever area of life the Holy Spirit sees fit to work on in each of them; that can't happen when sinners are turned away at the door. So yes, I would welcome the homosexual partnered couple, and encourage them toward ever-greater fidelity; I would not say what I cannot say, i.e. that I have any scriptural basis for calling the sexual relationship blessed as such; but I could acknowledge the desire to grow in faith and the goods brought out of less than ideal situations.
Hmmm
Posted by
Jeff Meyer
at
July 24, 2009 00:35
I don't know. I just can't see St. Paul, even were he brought up to speed on our "culture," telling a homosexual couple to go ahead and be more faithful to each other in their erotic relationship. Is that what you mean? Or be more faithful to Christ and to each other in Christ but sans the sodomy? It sounds like consciously welcoming sin in the door to me.
big tent
Posted by
rewink
at
July 17, 2009 16:11
The big tent is already here, the question is whether to give it official blessing. The acceptance of gay rights in the church follows the unoffical acceptance of gay rights in the clergy and church leadership. To understand this controversy, you have to see that the battle was lost 10-20 years ago. As the ranks of the clergy filled with gays and gay sympahizers, it would be only a matter of time that they would--in one direction-- move up the clerical ranks to the leadership and, in the other direction, increasingly influence the laity by their preaching, teaching, etc. The only way to forestall this now would be a Preus-like leader to do a house-cleaning of theologians, bishops, pastors, etc--which won't happen since no one, including conservatives, have the stomach for that.
The big tent is a lie
Posted by
David Pross
at
July 19, 2009 18:10
The big tent doesn't exist.
Back in '01, when all this started bubbling up, my wife and I tried to talk to our then-pastor about it. He was very evasive, and then finally got very angry and told us IN A SERMON, more or less, to get on board or get out.
That's how we ended up in the LCMS for eight years.
When I hear "big tent," I think of a "big tent" for Lutherans Concerned, etc., and traditionalists at the back of the bus for not being "open-minded" enough.
Back in '01, when all this started bubbling up, my wife and I tried to talk to our then-pastor about it. He was very evasive, and then finally got very angry and told us IN A SERMON, more or less, to get on board or get out.
That's how we ended up in the LCMS for eight years.
When I hear "big tent," I think of a "big tent" for Lutherans Concerned, etc., and traditionalists at the back of the bus for not being "open-minded" enough.
Rip the Band-Aid Off Now, Already!
Posted by
Jonathan
at
July 13, 2009 10:35
Yes, it's gonna hurt. But, we can't keep putting it off and just go on pretending like it doesn't exist--avoidance is a weak answer. How can a synod journey ("walk") together when its members are going in opposite directions? Thankfully, the church is not the ELCA or any denomination, and the church will do just fine after the vote, because the Word of God works. Let not your hearts be troubled and take a stand for the Word.
Prepare the Silver Plates: Heads are Gon'na Roll
Posted by
Rik E.
at
July 13, 2009 12:34
I appr4eciate your thoughts, Sarah, and your willingness to share them. You summed it up well with the words: "But voting on this issue at all—yes or no—is only going to exacerbate the crumbling of this house. Stop the madness! Call for a moratorium. We are not ready for this." Indeed not!
At my inlaw's ELCA church, yesterday, I heard about a prophet who lost his head. Literally. Earlier in his life he was asked, "Art thou the Christ? Art thou Elijah?..." This time he might as well have been asked, "Art thou a biblicist?" To be sure, John was no anti-nomian. But neither was the baptizer a legalist. Both Law and Gospel fit into his theology. While King Herod wasn't thrilled with the content of John's preaching, he recognized John was "a righteous and holy man." "When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him." (Mark 6:20 NRSV). As Pastor Ninnemann put it, John the Baptist was no "yes man." In my own thoughts, John was a faithful witness and was willing to speak the whole word of God regardless of the repercussions. If only more Lutheran pastors would follow suit. While Herod did not prefer the truth, "yet he liked to listen to him." Herodias's mom would have preferred a larger spiritual tent--less Law, more Gospel. John did not give them what itching ears wanted to hear. So he lost his head, thanks to a well received not-so-liturgical dance. What of the faithful martyrs (read: witnesses [Grk]) in the ELCA who seek to speak the truth in love, not giving into revisionism and acceptance uber alles? Will they be heard this August at the CWA, or will their heads be served on silver platters? -Rik.
At my inlaw's ELCA church, yesterday, I heard about a prophet who lost his head. Literally. Earlier in his life he was asked, "Art thou the Christ? Art thou Elijah?..." This time he might as well have been asked, "Art thou a biblicist?" To be sure, John was no anti-nomian. But neither was the baptizer a legalist. Both Law and Gospel fit into his theology. While King Herod wasn't thrilled with the content of John's preaching, he recognized John was "a righteous and holy man." "When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him." (Mark 6:20 NRSV). As Pastor Ninnemann put it, John the Baptist was no "yes man." In my own thoughts, John was a faithful witness and was willing to speak the whole word of God regardless of the repercussions. If only more Lutheran pastors would follow suit. While Herod did not prefer the truth, "yet he liked to listen to him." Herodias's mom would have preferred a larger spiritual tent--less Law, more Gospel. John did not give them what itching ears wanted to hear. So he lost his head, thanks to a well received not-so-liturgical dance. What of the faithful martyrs (read: witnesses [Grk]) in the ELCA who seek to speak the truth in love, not giving into revisionism and acceptance uber alles? Will they be heard this August at the CWA, or will their heads be served on silver platters? -Rik.
Heads will probably roll
Posted by
David Pross
at
July 20, 2009 12:27
I would be very surprised if traditionalists are given more than a cursory hearing, if that, based on past CWA treatment of us.
One thing that Lutherans Concerned are is organised, and they work hard to control the "debate." Witness all the "rainbow stoles."
This "study" has never been impartial.
One thing that Lutherans Concerned are is organised, and they work hard to control the "debate." Witness all the "rainbow stoles."
This "study" has never been impartial.
Sexuality statement
Posted by
The Rev. Norman Krapf
at
July 13, 2009 13:49
I thought the biblical witness regarding marriage and sexuality precluded legitimatizing same sex unions and a rite for such. Or are the scientific facts indisputable as to why homosexuals are such meaning beyond their volition? A clear determination on the above appears lacking. I favor retaining the present standards regarding the ordination and rostering of professionals.
Western Iowa Synod
Posted by
Jay
at
July 13, 2009 21:20
Here's what happened at the Western Iowa Synod Assembly - at the beginning of the assembly, it was decided that all memorials to the ELCA needed to be passed by a 2/3 majority. So, the resolution simply labeling marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman needed only 50%+1, but the memorial to the ELCA on the same subject needed a 2/3 majority. So, support was above 50%+1 but less than 2/3.
Reply to Jay
Posted by
Sarah Wilson
at
July 15, 2009 00:04
Thanks for the clarification! That makes much more sense.
Reply to Jay
Posted by
Larry
at
July 17, 2009 15:45
Probably none of my business, but that decision to require a 2/3 majority for memorials kind of hamstrung your Synod and its ability to voice its opinion to the CWA.
Resposnse to Hinlicky
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
July 14, 2009 10:57
My response to Dr. Hinlicky's Five-Part article, which is titled "Commentary regarding Dr. Paul Hinlicky's attack on the LSTC faculty," has been posted at:
http://www.kurtjohnsonbooks.com
as the first item under the essays column
http://www.kurtjohnsonbooks.com
as the first item under the essays column
Nuance
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
July 14, 2009 12:00
In your response to Dr. Hinlicky, you also chose to include me, perhaps because I previously served the parish where you presently attend. I don't believe we have ever met.
Your response reminded me of the old "NIGYSOB" game in the much-dated "Games People Play." You assume too much. Robert Gagnon is hardly a fundamentalist in his magisterial work on the Bible and Homosexual Practice. David Instone-Brewer shows excellent critical skills in demonstrating that Jesus' response regarding divorce and remarriage in Mark 10 was entering into the rabbinical argument of that day -- an attack on those who divorced spouses for anything other than the rabinically acceptable occasions of adultery, abandonment, abuse, and neglect. For background purposes, all rabbinic certificates of divorce included the right to remarry. As Jesus sided with the stricter interpreters of the laws regarding divorce, he reinforced that God's good and gracious will was yet the lifelong monogamous union of one man and one woman. Instone-Brewer's two books on divorce and remarriage walk through the rabbinic arguments carefully and skillfully. First century CE Judaism is his scholarly speciality.
You apparently wish to mock me as among those with whom you disagree saying that I am playing fast and loose with texts according to my own personal whims. Accordingly, the logic with which you are operating seems to begin with "all traditionalists are fundamentalists." Perhaps it proceeds to "all fundamentalists are hypocrites?" Nuance seems to be absent from your line of attack.
For further reading, Richard Hays of the Duke Divinity faculty has done some excellent work on the Bible as the Church's book. He offers a churchly response to forensic pathologists of the Bible like Ehrman.
Your response reminded me of the old "NIGYSOB" game in the much-dated "Games People Play." You assume too much. Robert Gagnon is hardly a fundamentalist in his magisterial work on the Bible and Homosexual Practice. David Instone-Brewer shows excellent critical skills in demonstrating that Jesus' response regarding divorce and remarriage in Mark 10 was entering into the rabbinical argument of that day -- an attack on those who divorced spouses for anything other than the rabinically acceptable occasions of adultery, abandonment, abuse, and neglect. For background purposes, all rabbinic certificates of divorce included the right to remarry. As Jesus sided with the stricter interpreters of the laws regarding divorce, he reinforced that God's good and gracious will was yet the lifelong monogamous union of one man and one woman. Instone-Brewer's two books on divorce and remarriage walk through the rabbinic arguments carefully and skillfully. First century CE Judaism is his scholarly speciality.
You apparently wish to mock me as among those with whom you disagree saying that I am playing fast and loose with texts according to my own personal whims. Accordingly, the logic with which you are operating seems to begin with "all traditionalists are fundamentalists." Perhaps it proceeds to "all fundamentalists are hypocrites?" Nuance seems to be absent from your line of attack.
For further reading, Richard Hays of the Duke Divinity faculty has done some excellent work on the Bible as the Church's book. He offers a churchly response to forensic pathologists of the Bible like Ehrman.
Response to Zumwalt
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
July 14, 2009 13:09
You assume a lot. I didn't say any of that. I only was pointing out the need for a consistent approach with regard to one's view of the scripture-interpretation art.
Response
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
July 14, 2009 13:58
And my response indicates that I can, without being a fundamentalist or flippant in my use of scripture, make a case for divorce and remarriage and yet uphold the traditional teaching of the Church regarding sexual relationships.
WV-WMD & ELCA Dissolution
Posted by
Matthew Lynn Riegel
at
July 14, 2009 16:45
Wanted to let you all know that WV-WMD did not "table the resolution to dissolve the ELCA"--that was misreported by WorDAlone. The WV-WMD synod defeated (27-90) a resolution to memorialize the Churchwide Assembly to initiate a process for the orderly and amicable dissolution of the ELCA. The resolution further called for such a dissolution to give preference to existing synodical and regional boundaries and to provide for a charitable process of alignment and realignment of synods, congregations, rostered persons, and church related institutions and agencies. It also called for continued cooperation among the emergent judicatories where reasonable and appropriate.
Previous question was called after the fourth speaker. Two had spoken for, two against by that point--I do not include in that calculation the report of the bishop, the churchwide rep, or the video from the presiding bishop, but, if I were to do so.... Anyway, the question was called--barely--and the vote was taken.
BTW, sex and sexuality was not even introduced as support for the motion--in fact, it was excluded as a basis in the introduction speech. The argument for the motion was based in that introduction speech upon the failure of the model of interdependence.
IMO, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that it is time to declare the ELCA a failed experiment. Sex isn't even needed to make that case. To get started, just look at mission support patterns across the church. Then look at mission critical ministries.
The ELCA is an expression of the visible church. As a mere public utility (cf. Herbert Agar's _The Perils of Democracy_), the purpose of which is to provide the means and medium for the subsistence of the hidden church, it's justification for existence is to be measured by how well it does that job. In the midst of the sex debates we've not asked the question of utility.
Previous question was called after the fourth speaker. Two had spoken for, two against by that point--I do not include in that calculation the report of the bishop, the churchwide rep, or the video from the presiding bishop, but, if I were to do so.... Anyway, the question was called--barely--and the vote was taken.
BTW, sex and sexuality was not even introduced as support for the motion--in fact, it was excluded as a basis in the introduction speech. The argument for the motion was based in that introduction speech upon the failure of the model of interdependence.
IMO, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that it is time to declare the ELCA a failed experiment. Sex isn't even needed to make that case. To get started, just look at mission support patterns across the church. Then look at mission critical ministries.
The ELCA is an expression of the visible church. As a mere public utility (cf. Herbert Agar's _The Perils of Democracy_), the purpose of which is to provide the means and medium for the subsistence of the hidden church, it's justification for existence is to be measured by how well it does that job. In the midst of the sex debates we've not asked the question of utility.
Reply to Matthew
Posted by
Sarah
at
July 15, 2009 00:08
Thanks also for clearing up this report. It is truly remarkable, though, that this question even came to a vote at all (and had the amount of support it did!). I doubt that an amicable dissolution is really possible, but it is true, as you said, that even without the sexuality questions, the ELCA was assembled on ecclesiologically faulty grounds, and now we're reaping that harvest.
Agreed, Sarah
Posted by
David Pross
at
July 19, 2009 18:14
I agree that the grounds on which the ELCA was founded is much more like the foolish man who built his house on the sand.
I say this as a former United Methodist. In 1968, when the UMC formed, it became a single church body. There are very few references to the previous Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) or The Methodist Church. The only ones who even know about them are older parishioners.
In contrast, the ELCA has never been able to speak with a unified voice, without referring to a statement that the LCA made in 1950, the ALC in 1960, etc.
As a student of behavioural psychology, I really, really doubt there is going to be anything amicable about this. It has bubbled and festered for so long that there is a lot of resentment - much more than is acknowledged by our "leadership." I've seen it.
I say this as a former United Methodist. In 1968, when the UMC formed, it became a single church body. There are very few references to the previous Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) or The Methodist Church. The only ones who even know about them are older parishioners.
In contrast, the ELCA has never been able to speak with a unified voice, without referring to a statement that the LCA made in 1950, the ALC in 1960, etc.
As a student of behavioural psychology, I really, really doubt there is going to be anything amicable about this. It has bubbled and festered for so long that there is a lot of resentment - much more than is acknowledged by our "leadership." I've seen it.
Me Again
Posted by
Jeff Meyer
at
July 24, 2009 00:53
You don't have to believe me, but I know a man who knows Mark Hanson rather well. He says that Hanson doesn't believe that the "60's" went far enough disestablishing things and making room for something new. So why isn't he trying to stop this vote, like your dad encourages him to do? Maybe because he's got a plan. Shrug. They say that J.A.O Preuss, back in 1974, had only one fear: that the St. Louis professors might actually turn around and walk back in.
Not voting affirms status quo