DOMA R.I.P.

Amidst all the blubbering and gnashing of teeth over the Supreme Court's ruling the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it would do to step back and remember a little history from the 1990's when Congress and President Clinton put the DOMA legislation into lawbooks. 

Conservatives were not happy with DOMA when it first was proposed to begin with.  Predictions from Conservative legal scholars at the time said that eventually it would not withstand a Constitutional challenge before the court.  Indeed, that is precisely what happened. 

DOMA was a measure introduced by liberals ostensively so that the Constitution would not be “cluttered” with another amendment.  Conservatives wanted an amendment that clearly stated marriage was reserved for a man and a women; But DOMA was advertized as a compromise all sides could live with.

Once DOMA was made law, stealth or otherwise proponents of the gay rights agenda said that there was no need for an amendment since there was already a statute on the books--no need to burden our sacred Constitution.  True to its purpose, all the wind went out of sails for Congress to set forth an amendment for the states to put forth to their legislatures.  Despite assurances to the contrary, briefs set before the various state and federal courts succeeded in constitutionalizing the question anyway.

Thoughtful Conservatives knew what was up then.  We knew this day would eventually come.  Maybe not presently…maybe not in our lifetimes…but someday.

Face it.  Proponents for traditional marriage were snookered.  Out maneuvered from the very beginning with DOMA.

Gay rights has always been an enthusiasm of the Left from the start.  Once the Left took up the cause, its legions and fellow travelers (including those Christians who like to think of themselves as enlightened) took their cue and in time fell in line.)

It was a classic strategic practice of the “The Three D.s”.

DENY true aims and goals.

DELAY any definitive resolution of the issue until a "win" can be established.  (A series of defeats count for nothing but one win once settles the matter once and for all.)

DEFLECT attention away from the issue by saying that it is all over and that there are far more important matters that need to be addressed rather than this little old thing.

Those familiar with the history of the ELCA can recognize elements of the "Three D.s" leading up to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  From the first calls of "can we talk?", denials that all this talk was actually intended to go somewhere,  appeals for "further prayer and dialogue" following each defeat, and cessation of all that "prayer and dialogue" upon achieving one majority once.  "Hey, you don't have to agree in order to belong!"  Those knowledgeable of those events can put more flesh on that brief sketch. 

Be all this as it may, none of this is really about civil rights or "welcoming" homosexuals into the fold of the Church.  It is about removing any public suggestion that there is something morally suspect with homosexual behavior.  For many, there is nothing wrong with that; thus this is an occasion for jubilation for a hard fought victory.  They achieved their goal and will press on for more.

Just don't take it all at face value.  The issue often times isn't the issue.

ECHOES OF THE 2009 CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY

FIRST THINGS reports in the June 4th website that Southwest California Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America has elected the first openly gay bishop in the denomination's history. Pastor R. Guy Erwin will serve that Synod in that high post for the next six years. This, of course, follows the tumultuous decision by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of ELCA to allow the ordination of noncelibate gay men and women.

The ever prolific Martin Marty (dean of American church historians at the University of Chicago) notes that: “It[is a] historic and a turning point, as was the ordination of women…This is just one of many indications that the culture has shifted.”

Perhaps so.

Through the recent years before the Assembly, aside from calls from certain Lutheran principals for the national leadership to unilaterally declare that openly, noncelibate gays eligible for ordination, there has also been a widely spread notion that in time the ELCA Lutherans in the pews would eventually "come around". Additionally, it was predicted that in ten years ELCA Lutherans will look back in disbelief and wonder what all the fuss was about.

So does the elevation of Pastor Erwin bear out these predictions? Well, not exactly. The Southwest California Synod had long been one of the driving forces for the change in church policy toward homosexuals; so in their way Southwest was acting according to form. If some synod from "fly over" country had done (or will do) the same thing, we might have a better sense of the views of average ELCA Lutherans. (On the other hand, having been in several Synod conventions, the elections of representatives to the National Assembly have a serious flaw. When candidates are put forward, we learn almost nothing about their views aside from what great guys and gals they are. In the past, synod offices universally discouraged attempts to canvas potential candidates. So just how representative these folks were/are remains an open question.) Without actual polling of ELCA Lutherans, we just don't know.

"Pro-gay" individuals and organizations had stated that once gays who engage in homosexual sexual congress were allowed into the ministry that thousands would be teaming to enter the Church doors. The theory was that great numbers of folks were restraining themselves from joining in the fellowship as long as the denomination was seen as "unwelcoming". Whether these folk actually believed their own predictions in this regard is impossible to say. I'm inclined to take them at their word. Nevertheless, to say the least, that rush into the ELCA fold didn't happen. Apparently, these open-minded but refraining folk are still holding themselves back.

Instead, since the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, the ELCA has lost a half a million members. Mathew Block in First Things offers some details:

Following the 2009 vote, the ELCA lost nearly half a million members in 2010 and 2011. Granted, some of that is simply the steady decline which many mainline denominations (including the ELCA) have been going through for years. But that can’t account for most of it. In 2009, the ELCA lost 90,850 members (14,781 more than the year previous). Keep in mind that Churchwide Assembly happened late in 2009. By 2010, the membership losses were more dramatic, with the ELCA losing 270,349 people that year (5.9% of the entire church at that time). In 2011, they lost another 212,903 (4.98% of the entire church at that time). Statistics on 2012 are not yet reported online.

This doesn't even take account of the dislocations in relationships of the ELCA with other Lutheran bodies in the world. The most serious has been the Ethiopian Evangelical [Lutheran] Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY) totally breaking fellowship with ELCA. Ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches also have suffered a few steps back.

The 2009 decision by the ELCA was followed by disaffection of thousands of its members and the establishment of The North American Lutheran Church the following year. Currently, the NALC claims 130,000 members in more than 345 congregations. The slightly older Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ has acted as another haven from many departed ELCA members. In 2008, the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ had 217 congregations. They now list 716 congregations on their roster. And, unthinkable for many, The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod has been another major destination for those disaffected from the ELCA.

What the ELCA has going for it is the natural human propensity for inertia. Indeed, loses of dissenting congregations from the fellowship were not as great as some ELCA officials feared. What is not as clear is how many ELCA Lutherans voted with their feet and simply left for more congenial established Churches--perhaps...say…the afore mentioned Missouri Synod or even other Christian denominations. (Crossing the Tiber to Rome does not seem to be all that popular in spite of a few highly publicized conversions by a few former Lutheran theologians.)

Has the ELCA been chastened by the fallout from becoming a "welcoming" Church. To some degree, it has been a kick in the teeth. As the ELCA approaches the twenty-fifth anniversary of its founding, the aftermath of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly has acted as a lingering wet blanket over any sense of accomplishment and celebration. Not only have the consequences extracted costs in revenues and membership; they also have depleted much the gemütlichkeit, social capital and, goodwill the Church sorely needs to move forward. Even many of those who chose to remain within the denomination feel a deep sense of alienation with the ELCA. Nevertheless, for the sake of their vision of justice, most of the original proponents of the reforms would do the same if they had to do it all over again.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that the locus of the conflict has been "dumped" on individual parishes. Each congregation will have to sort out which policy they will follow themselves. As of this time, no congregation has any obligation to hire a "practicing" gay Pastor. Neither do they have to bless same sex couples let alone marry them. But these matters are potentially ticking time-bombs in the futures of these congregations. Undoubtedly, the more progressive Pastors will endeavor to move these issues forward among their flocks--and if not the Pastors then individual members of the congregation. But it is one thing to be accepting of the ELCA's new policy in the abstract--quite another to act on it oneself. Without a doubt, many in favor of allowing individual parishes to call non-celibate gay Pastors (partnered or otherwise) will decline having one lead their own congregations. Even still, conflicts will abound when blessings of same-sex couples and/or performing weddings for these are brought forward for changes in parish policies.

How are most congregations dealing with these issues thus far? In short, neither side simply are not bringing the subject up--feeling that courting a disastrous "civil war" is not worth it--certain that once the battle is engaged it will not end until one side or the other prevails. This is currently how my own congregation is handling the subject--not that some have not pressed these issues around the peripheries. How long this state of affairs will be maintained is anyone's guess. My guess is that it will be quiescent until the time comes to call a new Pastor.

Since the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, ELCA leadership and those satisfied with the new changes in official church policy have tried a number of approaches in appealing to those itching to put their foot out the door--everything from calling for unity, downplaying the reforms, and shaming the disaffected with charges of a lack of Christ-like love. Perhaps the most disingenuous argument has been that dissenting Lutherans shouldn't care that much about it-- insincere in that, for being an issue that is not worth "caring about", it did not stop the ELCA leadership and their allies from pressing forward. One can't take an axe to the log and then blame the wood that fell on one side of the blade for dividing the log.

Be that as it may, protestations that disagreement over "gay clergy" shouldn't be "church dividing" haven't been all that persuasive.

The more irenic of the pro-reform ELCA Lutherans have petitioned the "confessing" faction to come together in love for the fellowship and for both sides to bind to each other in respect and trust. Perhaps that is just the rub. "Confessing" Lutherans no longer trust either the ELCA leadership or the pro-reform parties. Aside from a host of practical implications the new policy regarding the roistering of gay Pastors in committed relationships, there is an overriding concern: how shall Scripture now by read and used in the ELCA. More to the point, if the ELCA can see its way to do this, what more will they do in future?

 

SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW

One of the preoccupations one will find among the divines in most churches is an extreme version of ecumenism.  By that I mean persistent obsession with the merger of the various denominations into one church.  The latest kiss in this passion is Ephraim Radner's new book, A Brutal Unity.

Radner is an Episcopalian professor of theology and a historical theologian.  In A Brutal Unity, Radner allows no room for the myriad justifications for the separation of all Christian Churches from one another.  This includes the classic Lutheran distinction of the visible and invisible Church.  It seems Radner carries no brief of anything short of a one visible Christian, Universal Church.  In the light of the long history of Christians killing Christians, Radner hands down the judgment that “Division is Murder”.

It seems one of the main, initial culprits for the divisions of the Church was Epiphanius and his fourth-century treatise Refutation of all Heresies.  In  Refutation of all Heresies , according to Radner, Epiphanius's solution to doctrinal disagreement in the Church is to pronounce heterodox Christians as apostates and outside the body of Christ thereby preserving the concord of the Church from heresy. For Radner, the lethal error is that Epiphanius discharges internal division among Christians by casting the heterodox outside the fellowship of the Church. 

Radner does not deny the false teachers, unrepentant sinners, and heretics exist nor does he pretend that they present a danger to the Church.  Those out of malice resist the instruction of the Church are to be the same as Gentiles and tax collectors Jesus preached against.   But Radner points out that Jesus lived among tax gatherers and sinners, and so all Christian should do the same.. Pursue them so that they can be restored to the fellowship.  To be true to Jesus,  Church should not cannot do, is cast the sinners and heterodox out of the Church and then pretend that they are following Christ's prayer to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane and "be as one". 

Radner has no solution as to how the Church can attain true unity where all Christians are of one mind.  He is clear that building a consensus is not the way.  He also has no truck with the Catholic notion that Christian persons sin and can and have performed horrible acts against believers and unbelievers alike; but Church as the living body of Christ is without sin.  Instead, the Church is fallible and frequently labors against what it preaches.  But even in error, Christ continues to live among and gives Himself. 

The key to the true Church is accept that division and disagreement are an essential element for Christian union.  It must accept suffering contradiction among its disciples.  Coming to "one mind and one heart" is brought to reality only by gathering, prayer, devotion to apostolic teaching, Eucharist, and sharing of property.  This, Radner claims, was the model of the early Church.

I don't have any patience with this kind of talk.  I fail to understand this preoccupation with "unity". I find it utterly utopian and worthless. Way to much verbal diarrhea is spent on the mating of the mammoths. One has to accept that we have the Church we have instead of a Church we want. After centuries of division and even outright hostility, we have to struggle on making all Christians work on making us friendly and civil toward one another. For the foreseeable future, that would be a significant accomplish in and of itself.

How is it so many of Christians who normally take a careful, nuanced approach to Scripture suddenly turn into rock-ribbed fundamentalists when it comes to Jesus’ “…may they be one…” prayer made in the garden? In the same prayer, Jesus asked “…let this cup pass from me…” and He didn’t get that one either. What makes us think that if He didn’t get one He necessarily would be granted the other? How does a request made to the Father turn into unqualified command to us? And does “be one” mean all of us have to be under one roof?

Given human nature, each of us keeping to his/her own “house” is the more humane choice over cramming us all together. One way of looking at it: separate “churches” has been an expedient means of keeping the peace. No. It is not ideal; but it is what we got.

Besides, am I the only cynical one who starts to gag every time some church divine weeps great big crocodile tears about the scandal of a multiplicity of Christian Churches in the eyes of the world? “You don’t understand, Mick. Unless we’re one, they won’t listen to us.” Oh really? Do you REALLY, honestly think that if the world doesn’t want to listen it needs the excuse of a divided Christianity to do so?

When I was a young teenager in 1969-1970, most the various Churches our small college town would gather their youth together in an ecumenical exercise--looking to develop a inter-denominational concord on the theory that the young would someday be the leaders of the Church and historic divisions would be dropped and overcome so that the various denominations would come together as one body.  Our gathering mostly avoided any discussion of doctrine, favoring instead fun activities young people enjoy anyway, service projects, ending in a kind of generic liturgical worship service.  (In spite of best efforts, the fundamentalists and what we now call evangelicals took exception to such "by the book" devotions.  Where were the altar calls?)  The result for me was an avoidance of my own Lutheran upbringing for a general notion of being "just a Christian".

It was in a Methodist college attended by fellow student of all religious backgrounds that I was disabused of the notion that a "just a Christian" Christian actually existed. .  It was there that I slowly began to realize just how much a Lutheran I was.  The one Christian youth group on campus was filled with all types; but, as the years proceeded, the fundamentalists and evangelicals began to exert their strength and numbers and insisted that the group become more congenial to their way of thinking.

Be that all as it may, it turned out that even simple Bible studies were plagued by different truth claims, a stubborn inclination to speculate beyond the text, and a propensity to focus on single Scriptural verses--leading to much bewilderment due to the absence of context and no conception of "Scripture interpreting Scripture".

These were also the years of the "Jesus freaks".  They would descend on campus on weekends from the big cities, cornering otherwise defenseless students to make conversions, and otherwise made a lot of mischief.  (While rejecting drugs and alcohol, they had some pretty accommodating notions about premarital sex.) They made a special point of targeting a friend of mine who lived across the hall.  He guilelessly and casually let it be known to one and all that he was an atheist.  (He was kind of a bozo; but we liked him anyway.) The harassment he suffered from these invaders nearly lead him to drop out of school.

This was also the time that the charismatic movement began to gather steam across the fruited plain.  At first, there enthusiastic individuals were rather gentle folk and somewhat pleasantly amusing.  But as I would discover several times later in my life, something happens when charismatics reach critical mass.  They become intolerant of other forms of Christianity--insisting that only true Christians spoke in tongues.  As you may imagine, it didn't do much to add harmony among us.

One novel feature of our charismatic cohort was the teaching of something they referred to "spurious Scripture".  Liberals will often debate among themselves which parts of Scripture were genuine and whether much of the Bible is historically reliable--included suspicions that some of what Jesus was recorded as saying was really articulated by Him.  These charismatics taught that much of the Bible was actually inserted by the Devil to lead believers astray.  (Which parts seemed to change by necessity.)

All these things lead me to realize that the differences among Christians were deep seated and generally irreconcilable.  Unfortunately, nothing I have seen and experienced in my travels among Christians of all types has contradicted my conclusion. 

What I am suggesting is, if the Church never was nor is “one”, there are concrete reasons for it. There are deep theological faultlines separating us across which even Christians of good will shall not skip over and cross for the sake of fellowship.  The Church (pace Radner )NEVER has been one—even in the days of the so-called early, “primitive” Church. Many of those early churches were out rightly heretical and set to subvert the Gospel.  One thing we do know, if the Father did not set the foundation for a unified Church, it was not going to happen no matter how much we Christians exercised our precious “free wills".

Which brings us to the unpleasant subject of rank hypocrisy. It isn’t worth a lot of time refuting the professed pieties of “may they be one” because such self-appointed prophets don’t really believe in them. If they did, the Protestants would submit to Rome and Rome would return to the Orthodox.

Finally, it doesn't help that for our divines that dealing with established doctrinal divisions isn't enough.  We have to deal with theological innovations as well.  Rome's infallibility of the Pope in 1870 and the Assumption of Mary in 1950 easily come to mind.  But such controversial issues among Protestants concerning divorce, remarriage, contraception, the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual virginity of Mary, historical criticism, the creeds, and even the denial virgin birth of Jesus and His ascension into Heaven have rocked Protestants within their own denominations yesterday and today.  This isn't even getting into the "homosexual wars" roiling us today. 

In my own humble opinion, it is well enough for all Christians to learn to be friendly and decent with each other.  Unfortunately, we aren't even doing that very well.  Throwing us all together into one house will not help that and is highly unlikely to persuade the world to say:  "Oh, how those Christians love one another.