"THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET WOMEN SPEAK IN CHURCH"

Last week, the ELCA elected for the time first a woman to be the Presiding Bishop.  Many exclaimed "It's about time!"  Indeed, the surprising results of the involved process in choosing the head of the ELCA put Pastor Mark Hanson into early retirement.  Hanson was expected to be easily re-elected to a third term as Presiding Bishop.  On the first ballot, Hanson had the most votes but not a majority.  As the process went forth, competing candidates dropped out which concentrated votes toward alternative contenders.  In the end, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton from the Northeastern Ohio Synod became the clear leader. 

Not a few felt the Holy Spirit guided the Churchwide Assembly to make this momentous and historic choice.  I don't know if the cultural climate within the ELCA had a hand in it; but one certainly hopes the Holy Spirit had the stronger hand in the matter.

As one of my correspondents wrote: 
"I know practically nothing about the new presiding bishop, except that my female clergy colleagues are all ecstatic today...  ALL!  And a few of the laywomen at SOC (Servants Of Christ) have also weighed in with their approval.  It was time, of course.  And speaking as the former Missouri Synod guy that I am, it couldn't have happened sooner...!  The bigwigs in St. Louis and up at Ft. Wayne will be furious, and for all the wrong reasons.  I hope I can wipe this sly smile off my face."

Soon, however, things later changed for him: 

" Having just gotten home after a stressful day, I thought I'd google the ELCA assembly news...  And I must say, I've just about lost my appetite for [our] good dinner over the vicious and untruthful blog posts from mostly nameless right-wingers, who are accusing the new bishop specifically and the ELCA generally of being (and I'm actually quoting here...) Satanists, baptizing animals (and worse...), dancing naked in front of idols, etcetera., and this is being said by people who are claiming to be conservative Christians.  It's vicious! 

I expected opposition to this election, of course, but not something quite so brazenly destructive as this.  It's not that they oppose the concept of female clergy that gets me; that's a valid theological discussion to have, and both sides ought to respect one another.  It's the unbelievably crass and hate-filled language, calling itself faithful to the Gospel that has me crying...  This kind of narrative is also what's driving people out of churches in droves, not just the ethical issues...  The inhospitality and unkindness, the intolerance...  It's intolerable.  

I also read one liberal out there today who said that she left the ELCA years ago because it wasn't liberalizing fast enough for her; but her remarks were basically kind and encouraging, both for the ELCA election and even for the conservatives who are sticking with the ELCA.  On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of the other kind of voices out there, vs. that one of hers.  Dear God, what are we doing in your name??  The "wry smile" that I alluded to this morning is long gone...!"

I am often dismayed by many, many comments on the web over thousands of subjects and events.  I guess the web brings out the worst  in some people.  I thing I try to remember is that it is not fair to judge a group/persuasion/cause by the neurotics it attracts.  Unfortunately, so many on the right forget that one of the marks of being a conservative is to be a gentleman/gentlewoman.  Both Liberals and Conservatives are children of Enlightenment (however one philosophically appraises the Enlightenment) good manners tells us that it is essential to treat those with whom one disagrees with generosity and respect--and not a little noble grace.

 

For those in favor of women in the ministry are fond of citing Galatians 3:28:  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  They also refer to Scriptural evidence that women held positions of authority in the early Church--perhaps, even serving as priests. 

Those opposed frequently respond that the Church has no authority to ordain women:  "Where is written…?"  These are two very different perspectives which are irreconcilable.  Roman Catholics in particular are unlikely to depart from the teachings of the Church Fathers and the voice of Church tradition--believing that tradition contains the Apostolic teachings the Church as it has always taught from the beginning.

For my part, I see little wrong with women in the ministry--taking Galatians 3:28 and the allusions to women churchly authorities in Scripture seriously.  I do allow that, as far as the worldwide ministry of the Church is concerned, the jury is still out as to whether this is good thing over all.  It has been mostly good in America and Europe.  But for evangelism into non-European cultures, it remains to be seen.  Some have speculated that peoples in Africa, Asia and perhaps South America would be off-put:  thinking that the message must not be very important if the Church sent a woman to present it or that we don't feel they themselves are that important to the Church if we send women to preach the Gospel.  Maybe.  Perhaps.  But I hardly think those perceptions will be decisive in the years to come.

Temperamentally, I am cool to the idea of the Church making any gesture to be a "signal" to the rest of the Christian Church.  As far as having women pastors, those for and those against have already made up their minds.  So that ship sailed a long time ago.   My concern for any decision the Church may make is whether it serves the Gospel or not.  If the Church makes a move to be a "social statement" it is doing so for the wrong reasons.

On the other hand, as it is said, God writes straight with crooked lines.  The right things are often done for the wrong reasons.  And so it may be in this case.  However this may be, we wish Bishop Eaton well and pray for a successful and Spirit-lead tenure as Presiding Bishop.

From the articles and interviews I have read, Bishop Eaton pretty much tows the line the ELCA has chosen for itself since its inception--making deep bows to guiding principles of "hospitality" (a loaded term if there ever was one) and inclusiveness.  So don't expect any deviations from set policy.  She is said to be a "centrist"--whatever that means.  Bishop Hanson is also described as a moderate and centrist.  For critics of the ELCA, this does not bode well. 

For the "confessional" Lutherans within the ranks of the ELCA, the expectations are the slow wheels of repression will continue to grind on.  Sure, one can disagree and still be a member of the ELCA.  Whether the voices of those "confessional" Lutherans will ever be heard and represented within the seminaries, assemblies, and various committees and councils is doubtful.  (Inclusiveness and diversity has a way of ignoring--for the lack of a better word--"philosophical" diversity). More troubling is the issue that one can oppose the positions of the ELCA all one wants for however long one wants; but what will our children and grandchildren be taught?

Pastor Hanson's tenure was rocked with a continuing series of controversies and loss of membership.  One could hope that the ELCA will settle into a period of stability and quiescence; but the "peace and justice" crowd are unlikely to refrain from their project for continuing reforms.  Whatever enthusiasms the secular Left takes up usually become "Gospel" imperatives for the religious Left--secular political/social causes dressed up in religious garb.

Perhaps Bishop Eaton will find the means to negotiate the troubled waters which beleaguer the ELCA into a calmer harbors.  For the sake of the ELCA and its members, one certainly hopes so.