A CELLAR FULL OF NOISE

February 9th marks the fiftieth anniversary of The Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show--which also was their first performance in America.  It was watched by approximately 73 million viewers in over 23 million households,^] or 34 percent of the American population.  Unless you happened to be there in front of a TV set, it is next to impossible to describe the electrical lightening storm that rolled across the nation from those few minutes.   The following day, the critical consensus was mostly negative--objecting to The Beatles' haircuts and much as their music.  The blessed William F Buckley Jr. (an avid devotee of J.S. Bach) summed up his impressions thus:

The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as "anti-popes."

So really, Bill, don't hold back.  Tell us what you really think.

The more mainstream Newsweek Magazine was only slightly more tempered:

 "Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody."

Buckley never really ameliorated his opinion.  The rest of the media came around--if only years after The Beatles were no more.  They're role as principals (villains?) in the tempestuous cultural cascade of the sixties many times overshadowed their music: marijuana, LSD, the dreaded Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and even longer hair thwarted their many attempts to greet the larger public with a friendly face.  It was only with the release of Rubber Soul in 1965 their abilities as songwriters and musicians began to be taken seriously. 

Today, The Beatles are accorded near reverent accord.  Most today were not even born until after 1971 when The Beatles broke up.  All kind of slips out of focus at this remove.  You can scarcely find a baby-boomer who won't claim to have been a fan during those heady years of 1963-1971.  Many in the succeeding generations frequently speak as if they were there at the creation.  Others, while perhaps loving the music, have become sick of listening to the Boomers gushing and waxing poetic over John, Paul, George and Ringo.  Perhaps we boomers should grant we have pushed their forbearance a little too far.

All the same, we loved them.  They were the band which launched thousands of bands all around the world.  If you loved Rock, they were indispensible.  If you were one who suffered under the ravages of adolescence, The Beatles were a friendly face in a world that seemed not to like you very much.  Adults were sharply critical if not condemnatory.  The War loamed and might soon take you into its clutches.  Civil rights battles, racial tensions, riots and burning cities , the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King--all made the world a unsympathetic and hostile place. 

Through all these things, The Beatles were a light in the darkness.  We shared a fantastic belief that music could really change the world into a loving and peaceful place.  Looking back, it was a silly notion.  Still, to an adolescent, one had the sense The Beatles were in your corner.  They got you.  And they liked you.

One can wax poetic and delve into as much cultural anthropology and history as you can wish; but, as true as these investigation may be, it is easy to miss the most salient attractions about The Beatles:  they were fun and the music was phenomenal.

So on this anniversary, I present a short list of thirty of my favorite Beatles tunes.  This list purposely skips over the songs that are almost universally recognized as their best.  Everyone can cite I Want To Hold Your Hand, Help, Yellow Submarine, Something, Here Comes The Sun, Octopus's Garden or Hey Jude right off the top of their heads.  There is no denying they are the very best. My list on the other hand is about those songs which do not come immediately to mind but are also great and memorable these years hence.

Quite unintentionally, it turns out the list is pretty evenly divided between John's compositions and Paul's.  Fifteen from John and fourteen from Paul.  George Harrison's one selection rounds out the list.  Still, all in fun.

So…..

Across the Universe  (Lennon) The most gentle and transcendental song Lennon ever wrote.  First available to most on the Let It Be album.  The better, less gussied up version appears on Anthology 2.

Any Time at All  (Lennon)  Was incomplete when The Beatles took it to studio.  The middle eight is just a series of chords with the intension of adding lyrics latter--which never occurred as time ran out.  The final product was put on A Hard Day's Night in that form.  The result was a pretty rocking frolic.  I particularly like Starr's sharp snaps on the drums.

Back In The U.S.S.R./ Dear Prudence  (McCartney/Lennon)  OK.  A bit of cheat.  These are two separate songs.  But, as the Back In The U.S.S.R. fades almost seamlessly into Dear Prudence on the White Album, it is difficult to think of one without the other.  Back In The U.S.S.R. is a romping combination Elvis/Beach boys send up while Dear Prudence is a deceptively simple song--simple until one tries to do it himself 

Can't Buy Me Love  (McCartney)  Written under pressure to follow up I Want to Hold Your Hand.  One of the examples of the Beatles using a twelve bar blues structure. 

Come Together  (Lennon)  OK.  Not such an unusual choice.  One of the very best Lennon ever wrote.  The first time I heard it I hated it.  Several years later, it had grown on me to the point it one of very favorites.  Everything Lennon wrote afterward pales in comparison.   Chuck Berry heard it and wanted a cut from the royalties.  Details of the settlement have never been disclosed; but ole' Chuck walked away happy.  Still, stolen or not, one cool tune.

Do You Want To Know A Secret  (Lennon)  Written with George Harrison's limited vocal range in mind.  Both Lennon and McCartney thought the song itself wasn't up to their standards.  How wrong can you be?  Sweet and romantic. 

Eight Days A Week  (McCartney) Based on one of Ringo Starr's dogberryisms.  Released as a single only in America.  Lennon thought Eight Days A Week was a lousy song and The Beatles never performed in concert.  Shame.  It was a huge hit in America.  McCartney thought it was just an average song at best and didn't understand its appeal.  Years latter he concluded that, while it was only a middling tune, he supposed it was the performance which carried it over the top.  Just so!

Every Little Thing  (McCartney)  One of the few Beatle occasions when the composer (McCartney in his case) but came to be sung by another Beatle (Lennon here).  McCartney has a reputation an emotional lightweight lyrically.  This is one piece of evidence of deep poignancy. 

Good Day Sunshine  (McCartney)  Influenced by The Lovin' Spoonful: the song's "old-timey vaudevillian feel" partially recalls the Spoonful's hit Daydream, to which "Good Day Sunshine" bears some harmonic resemblance.  Leonard Bernstein (bless his heart) praised the song for its construction.  Those looking for deep thoughts on the meaning of life:  seek ye not here.

Got To Get You Into My Life  (McCartney)  McCartney doin' a Motown thing.  Even during those years in the seventies when Lennon and McCartney were in the middle of their acrimonious, bitter feud, Lennon said he still loved this one. 

Hello, Goodbye  (McCartney)  Just a song of opposites that comes together in a joyous gestalt.  Lennon hated this one; but he was wrong about a lot of things.

Here, There And Everywhere  (McCartney)  Inspired by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds album.  McCartney says this is one of the very favorites.  An ode to his then girlfriend, Jane Asher.

I Saw Her Standing There  (McCartney)  A feverish potboiler with a baseline lifted from Chuck Berry.  George Martin produced the song to create the effect of a live performance.

I Should’a Known Better  (Lennon)  Allegedly inspired by The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.  I'd have to take their word for it; but Dylan never wrote like this.  I like how the rhythm guitar weaves in and out between the lyrics.

I'll Follow The Sun  (McCartney)  A melancholy ballad about an eminent breakup.  Girl seems to take the boy for granted for which he promises he'll leave (someday) if thing go on as they are.  One of those "we have to talk" conversations one usually associates with the female of the species.  Perhaps because it is a reversal of roles which in part explains the attraction of this song.

In My Life   (Lennon)  Even old folk who hated The Beatles loved this song.  Lennon at one his most tender and loving introspections.

It's All Too Much  (Harrison)  Harrison at his psychedelic best.  Clearly Hendrix influenced.  A song to his wife, Patty  (your long blond hair and eyes of blue).  Written about the time of George, Patty, and Eric Clapton love mêlée was just starting.  Even so, if you love the psychedelica of the time, one of the most aggressive and assessable of its kind.  Substantially unlike anything Harrison had done before or afterward.

I've Got A Feeling  (McCartney)  The standout from the "concert on the roof" segment of the film Let It Be aside from Get Back itself.  Love the repeating riff throughout the song.

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds  (Lennon)  Lennon's opulent daydream in nursery rhyme surrealism.  One of the classic songs of all psychedelica. 

Magical Mystery Tour  (McCartney)  A pleasant tune full of surreal effects with a horn section fanfare and overdubs.  As was the want of those years, many thought Magical Mystery Tour was replete with explicit references to drugs and the Tibetan Book of the Dead.  Be that as it may, it is the title track to the much underappreciated album of the same name.

Please Please Me  (Lennon)  Originally Lennon's attempt to write a Roy Orbison song.  The result was a rather dreary, bluesy, slow tempo arrangement.  The final version was strongly shaped by George Martin their producer--thank the Lord.  Written as a follow,up to Love Me Do after Martin suggested they do a cover version of How Do You Do It? which the boys rejected.  In the end, Martin was happier with Please Please Me than How Do You Do It?  Certainly more exciting.

Revolution  (Lennon)  The lowly B-Side to Hey Jude.  The original later known as Revolution #1 was a slower acoustic affair which doesn't hold a candle to its hard rockin' version.  The gnarly guitar sound Lennon found for Revolution was latter copied by thousands of guitarists for years afterward. 

She Loves You  (McCartney)  Personally I'd prefer She Loves You over I Want to Hold Your Hand any day of the week.  The song starts with the refrain, has no bridge, and each chorus pounds the hook into your brain.  Energetic, optimistic, and each refrain ends the last "Yeah" on a flat. 

Tell Me Why  (Lennon)  A closest The Beatles ever came to having a jazzy feel.  Basic structure is simple doo-wop chord changes over a walking bass.  Sincerity through aggression.

The Night Before  (McCartney)  Often regarded as a minor McCartney composition.  Yet it is memorable and a favorite of many from the album Help!. Apparently Paul had a problem with girls who were loving at night and cool to him the next day.  The film has The Beatles recording The Night Before in an open field surrounded by tanks in the shadow of Stonehenge--and why not?

Ticket To Ride  (Lennon)  The chiming guitar lick (stolen from The Byrds) drives this whole track.  Surprisingly (at least at this remove) many in EMI's management and staff thought Ticket To Ride was uncommercial and a bad choice for a single--an opinion seconded by popular music critics.  The public bought it anyway; although Ticket To Ride was pushed off the charts by the Beach Boy's Help Me Rhonda after a mere week.

We Can Work It Out  (McCartney)  Although Paul's song, it's dramatic instinct was largely from Lennon's influence.  Based on Paul's touchy relationship with his girlfriend, Jane Asher, an optimistic and chiding admonition that all can be repaired. 

With A Little Help From My Friends  (Lennon)  The second song on Sgt. Pepper and a staple in Starr's All Stars concerts.  As with everything else from Sgt. Pepper, never released as a single.  Charming as only Ringo could make it.

You're Going To Lose That Girl  (Lennon)  A biting tune in which the singer warns an unnamed other that if he didn't straighten up and treat her right he was bound to lose his girl.  Of course, the singer hopes his advice won't be taken so he can take the girl for himself.  Not an unfamiliar circumstance many a guy has hoped to take advantage.

You've Got To Hide Your Love Away  (Lennon)  Strong Dylan influences.  Done purely as an acoustic and a highlight of the film Help!.  Said to be Lennon's frustration with being told by all concerned that he had to keep his extramarital adventures out of sight.  Lennon not being one to let his marriage to stand between him and the next naked female nonetheless bitterly follows orders in real life as well as in the song.  That is until Yoko Ono comes along.  Of course, the public didn't know that what the song was about at the time.  Most thought it was about loving someone from the wrong side of the tracks--which is how I prefer to hear it.  Reads more like a folksong than rock and roll.  Proved that The Beatles could plays in styles other than Love Me Do.

 

 

 

 

THE TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT

Most of us are familiar with the July 2012 news story in which Chick-fil-A's President Dan Cathy
said that he opposed gay marriage, prompting the boisterous outrage from several sectors with charges of bigotry, homophobia.  There had been no evidence that Chick-fil-A had refused to serve in gays nor discriminated in hiring and promotions--merely that Cathy stated his personal opinion during an interview.  All the commotion reached its apex with the mayor weighted in.  Rahm Emanuel proclaiming "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values".  Emanuel's comments were made along with threats of refusing to zone Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.  To say this put a chill on free speech would be modest.  What executive from other companies would risk similar expressions of their conservative Christian beliefs if they chance run afoul the sensitivities of the influential and powerful and their company's interests be put in jeopardy?

In different circumstances, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's  “extreme conservatives” are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” and “they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are".   Cuomo elaborated by drawing a distinction between "moderate" and "conservative" Republicans":  “figure out if your extreme conservative philosophy can survive in this state and the answer is no.”  Moderates were welcome.  Conservatives were not.  (Conservatives were by definition "extremists" in Cuomo political lexicon.)  Holding views which were conventional as little as ten years and are still common today are now apparently beyond pale.


(Of course, "moderate" Republicans themselves might have something to say about how exactly welcome they feel in Cuomo's political house.)

Governor Cuomo and Mayor Emanuel's examples are straight forward cases of overt bullying; but there are more subtle ways of stifling one's opponents.  The one I have in mind falls under the heading of "he who sets the terms of the debate controls the argument".

 

In the September 2013 issue of The Lutheran, Pastor Peter Marty, in his monthly submission, put forward his own attempt to set the terms for discussing and debating homosexuality and the church: "Talking About Homosexuality".  It might be remembered that his father, Dr. Martin Marty, similarly
put forward his own set of ground rules for discussing abortion in the late 1970's which severely hobbled pro-life advocates while pro-choice advocates would end up surrendering nothing and in effect hold the high ground before discussions would even begin. 

Indeed, if Pastor Marty's own ground rules are allowed to be instituted as guiding principles in "talking about homosexuality", homosexuality and the church simply could not be discussed.  By dissidents from the 2009 Sexuality Social Statement, that is.  The "diversity" planers and promoters  would be able continue on their merry way in the "inclusivity project".  Pastor Marty's article itself can fairly be counted as a soldier in the ELCA's inclusivity crusade.

Marty writes toward a number of points many of which take an interpersonal tack as well as several loose truisms and guilt tripping.  His point can be summarized:

1.)  The word "homosexual" should used sparingly--largely shelved in conversation, 
2.)  People are mostly drawn to the subject of homosexuality because it is about sex--eliciting all sorts of "juicy thoughts.
3.)  Whether one is heterosexual or homosexual tells one little about one's sex life.  To concentrate on another's sexual orientation fails to capture the full sense of his/her personhood.
4.)  We get all excited about another's homosexuality but rarely do we refer to another's heterosexuality in talking about them,
5.)  The modern recognition of "homosexual" as a separate type of human being is relatively recent one--one which the writers of both the Old and New Testaments had no concept.  Neither in Greek or Hebrew had a word for "homosexual".  The category or classification we refer to as "homosexuality" didn't exist in the time of the Biblical writers.
6.)  Where the Bible does refer to the lusting or exploitative use of sex by both same or "differently" gendered people has nothing to do with the loving, lasting and caring (shall we say wholesome) relationships two homosexuals can share with each other.
7.)  Homosexuals are living, breathing human beings no less than heterosexuals.  To focus only on their sexual orientation drains the full personhood from that individual.  One shouldn't treat a homosexual that way--a way we don't treat heterosexuals.

Marty then concludes:

"So keep recalling your connection to real people with real lives.  If everything God created is good, and God created each of us, how would a gay (or straight) person be anything more than what God created him or her to be?"

It is difficult to know where to begin.  Certainly, any homosexual (as with all men and women) should be treated with generosity and respect.  Just as certain, if one follows Marty's "rules", it would be next to impossible to have frank discussions about the moral status of same-sex "sensual docking procedures.  Perhaps for Marty that is just the point and such would suit him just fine.  Under such restraints, the ELCA leadership would be relieved to have the contested moral issue off their backs.  For traditionalists the bottom line is that it is OK to have moral reservations concerning homosexual erotic behavior, just don't give voice to them.

Marty's last sentence presents as obvious and mere common sense what is in reality controversial.  It is simply not true that everything that exists God created as good.  God at the end of the seven days of creation did behold it and said it was good.  But what was to follow was the Fall and with the Fall not only humanity separated from God but all creation itself was damaged and it became not as He intended .  Those who fall back on the argument on the goodness of creation are left with a myriad of existential evils to explain. 

This gets into the contentious subject of theodicy about which much ink has been spilled and it is doubtful Pastor Marty would have much to add in the way of justifying God's ways.  (Nor I for that matter.)  Is spina bifita intended by God?  (Worldwide, one out of five hundred individuals suffer from this congenial disorder.) Disease in general?  Blindness and deafness?   Then there are the mental disorders which torcher hundreds of thousands at any given time.   One in twenty men and women are sociopaths.  One in a hundred are psychopaths.  Depressions of unknown origin plague the lives of many--some to suffer such darkness a lifetime--some to prefer death over the hell of living another day.   Are these brought about by the intentionality of God?  What about tornados and earthquakes which kill thousands each year?  Yes, Pastor Marty would have a lot of explaining to do.

Of course, the presence of existential evil in and of itself does not establish the moral nature of homosexuality.  What the thorny question of God's divine intention does is rule out any argument which posits that goodness can be inferred from mere existence.  From this it should also be apparent that any genetic basis for homosexuality proves nothing.

Many believe that homosexuality is built into the DNA of gay men and women.  As such it is argued means that a genetic origin of homosexuality means that it is perfectly normal and natural.  But this assertion actually begs the question.  Many studies have been done and to date the "gay gene" or complex of genes remains elusive.   Many doubt that such a gene exists.  But, for the moment, let us assume that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.  It does not prove what Pastor Marty and others think it does.   What remains is the difficulty in knowing whether such a genetic formation is an expression of creation's goodness--or is it a sign of creation's brokenness?

Are homosexuals as God intended them to be: homosexual?  Pastor Marty seems to think they are; but he does nothing to convince us of this.

We see increasingly with the introduction of genetics and neuroscience into the mix to explain human behavior with the overt suggestion, the possibility it seems, that our choices are not made by ourselves.  Our makeup commands we what it demands or we refuse at our peril.  But the true story is that our lives are not reducible to these forces acting upon us.  We know at a basic level that there are others who have the same circumstances in play (or very similar) and do not act as their makeup insists.  There are choices made in the opposite direction--refusing to follow through our impulses.  That others make those choices proves that our actions are not predestined by our genes or our upbringing or our culture--even when we are told that we are entitled to the satisfaction of what we desire most.

Most homosexuals will tell you that they didn't wake up one morning a decide to be gay.  There is every reason to take them at their word.  Some radical lesbians maintain that women can choose be gay as an act out of their personal autonomy--but these are a distinct minority.  It seems far more likely to me that, instead of a singular act of choice, one becomes homosexual from a long series of many choices and experiences--many if not most unconscious ones.   By this I am saying nothing more than how each of us come to be what we are in life--whether sexually or in a host of other areas having nothing to do the sexuality.  For most of us, how we came to be who we are and what sort of person we are will always be shrouded in mystery.  As Neil Young sang in  See The Sky About To Rain:

                                                Some are bound for happiness. 
                                                Some are bound for glory. 
                                                Some are bound to live with less. 
                                               Who can tell your story?

What Pastor Marty wants is to shut down discussion and for the entire Church to come to a de facto final resolution--putting the whole unpleasant business behind us and pushing traditionalists to the very margins of the Church.  Pastor Marty's handling of the Biblical issues also leaves much to be desired and certainly can be contested.  (However one comes down in interpretation, the fact remains that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament say anything positive about homosexual acts.)  There is much left to be sorted out.  Much to put forth and those answered.  But we will be doing the Church no favors by curtailing dialog on our differences.

THE UNSTABLE RULES OF INCLUSIVENESS

When the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted statement on sexuality at the countrywide assembly in 2009, it also mandated a policy of tolerance and acceptance of those who disagreed and stood as opposed to the measure:

The promise read:

...that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America make provision in its policies to recognize the conviction of members who believe who believe that this church should not call or roster people in a publically accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship.

Even on its face, there was a great deal of ambiguity as to what "making provision" meant in the concrete.  Read narrowly, it only promised that no congregation could be compelled to call as Pastor an individual in a publically accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship.  Given the polity of the ELCA, no congregation could be forced to call any particular individual in the first place--conservative, liberal, black, white, gay or straight.  The decision to tender a call always has rested solely with the congregation--for better or worse, depending on one's point of view.  The synod has no power rotate or place any Pastor in a parish as happens in other denominations such as the Methodist or Catholic Churches.

The wider view of the mandate for tolerance and acceptance was that those who disagreed and stood as opposed to the statement on sexuality would be included in the various councils, boards, and committees within the church.  Although no one thought that there would be any kind of quota system for the inclusion of dissident representatives, in fact there also wasn't an explicit promise that any dissident layman or clergy would ever find a place in any of these functions.

The history of how the 2009 statement on sexuality came to be is long and complicated.  As one wag had it, the statement came down to "there is no consensus within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on the question of openly gay Pastors...so we'll do what we wanted to do in the first place anyway".  Among other things, it also didn't say what exactly the publically accountable part of a publically accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship was supposed to mean.

With so much not nailed down, it is perhaps not surprising that the promised "provision" for dissidents might be less than forthcoming or exacting. 

In the November issue of Lutheran Core Connection (admittedly not an unbiased source), one Pastor W. Stevens Shipman--the Lutheran Core Director--claims that the many functions within the ELCA have not been acting on the promise of tolerance.  Instead, they have been hostile to those who do not subscribe to the Churches' sexuality statement.  He charges that there has been significant "bullying" of prospective students by synodical candidate committees, seminarians seeking admission to the clergy roster, in call processes, and in synod elections.  He adds that some rather disagreeable actions and words have been directed toward pastors and congregations considering withdrawing from the ELCA. 

Being a mere layman, I am ill suited to determine to what extent--if any--of these claims are true.  My own parent's congregation experienced a great deal of anguish at the hands of their bishop and his offices as it moved to withdraw from the ELCA.  Having read some of the communications in the back and forth between their congregation and the bishop, "anguish" would be an understatement.  But that is only one congregation and in some ways they brought some of it on themselves.  My own Pastor sits on our synod's candidate committee and his witness is that there has been no bullying of any prospective candidate in the least.  I am inclined to take his word for it (he is a dissident himself); but I also bear in mind that at the time he had minimized (that is, put the best construction on) the implications of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly actions with its statement on sexuality.  Still, there has been nary a word from any source that any candidate has felt he/she had been or was being strong armed.

What to make of all this?

The strange assertion from the ELCA hierarchy made during the debates was that the issue should not be "church dividing".  In effect, by their lights, the traditionalists should not care that much over such a minor issue.  "You can disagree and still be a part of the church."  That didn't mean others were to walk under the same umbrella.   Of course, the hierarchy and the reformers could care a great  deal and press the issue toward its completion.  The traditionalists on their part were to say admitting practicing homosexuals into the ministry was not a crucial question.

But such an asymmetrical relationship could not be maintained.  The issue of allowing practicing homosexuals into the ministry was a crucial question.  A report to the ELCA Conference of Bishops held October 2013 stated that a total of 647 congregations have officially removed themselves from the roster of congregations of the ELCA.  How many individuals have voted with their feet and left the ELCA is a matter of speculation; but the total membership in the church fell below the 4 million mark--a loss of 14.7% since the 2009.

To be fair, all mainline churches have experienced significant membership drift; so the ELCA's loss cannot be attributed to the 2009 decisions by themselves.  But the ELCA's loss was sharply precipitous since the countrywide assembly.  The leadership was deeply strung by the membership reduction and the loss of income. 

Some hypothesize that having failed to maintain unity, taken the hit, the ELCA leadership now feels free to revert to its true character and come out unambiguously as a soldier in the GLBT cause.  Indeed, if various statement made by the past and present presiding bishops, and the ELCA's The Lutheran publication are any indication, any restraint out of respect for the remaining traditionalist has long been abandoned.

From one point of view, having coming out solidly in favor of practicing gay pastors (albeit with the provision they must be in partnered lifelong monogamous relationships) and having paid the price, exactly how much tolerance is owed to the dissidents?  Traditionalists even at this date remain a thorn in the Church's side.

Yet, the promise of accommodation with the orthodox and the policy of "welcoming" toward gays stand together.  How to resolve the matter?  The same way Biblical particulars are dismissed in favor accommodation with more enlightened theology.

As nearly everyone agrees that behind the recent "gay battles" two different approaches to how Scripture is read and used.  The more "liberal" reading is to take the entire Bible and locate overarching themes.  In this method, a reading is taken up to a set of abstractions through which issues are resolved--generalizations which may overrule particular, closer readings.  Thus two principles in this case are derived. 

The first is to cite the principal of inclusion and acceptance of diversity of all God's children into the arms of the Church.  By this, Jesus' earthly ministry demonstrates how He excluded no one from His kingdom--saints and sinners alike--as well as Jews and Gentiles--condemning no one.  By this light, sinners of all sorts are equal in the eyes of God with all sins being at heart the same--one being no less destructive than others .  Thus, it would be sinful and hypocritical to exclude one group of sinners from the ministry of the Church while admitting others--to do so displays a lack of love--a violation of Christ's command to all His disciples to love one another.  An all encompassing love which obliterates the heavy burden of the Law.  Exclusion, therefore, is revealed to be animated by hate while diversity is seen as a positive good. 

The second principle, in a sense, renders the first to be only a form of an argument rather than a concrete framework to the question of admitting partnered same-sex individuals to the ministry.  Indeed, the reforming factions regard homosexuality as a positive good and not sinful in and of itself.  The reasoning being that God created homosexuals as they are.  And, as God pronounced all His creation good, therefore homosexuality (same sex attraction)--as it was fashioned into the very fabric of creation-- is good.  Thus. it is slanders God by pronouncing as bad what He made a part of His good creation.

These two principles together become a standard which trumps the orthodox standard of faithfulness to the Biblical admonitions against same-sex carnal behavior.  (A subset of this is a rejection of the notion that the Bible actually says anything which forbids members of the same sex from sensual docking procedures.  Thus the orthodox are raising a standard which is a false, unbiblical one.)

It would take a cold heart not to have at least a little sympathy for the predicament the ELCA finds itself in.  Internal consistency within its ranks for what it presents to its members and the public at large is important if not crucial to its integrity as a "public church".  It also has to be remembered that the milieu of the upper leadership is not the parish but the universities and the trans denominational organizations such as the National Council of Churches.  The largely unspoken pressure is to conform to the enthusiasms of the left and not being seen as a church stuck in the backwaters of primitive, bigoted convictions.

Thus, the more orthodox are passed over for the ELCA's councils and committees on the grounds that they cannot stand behind the Church's public teaching and are insufficiently committed to the major value the Church has chosen for itself:  namely inclusiveness.  This operative is not spoken publically--although it probably is acknowledged in private.  Nonetheless, the effect is that the orthodox are not included in the name of inclusiveness.  Liberal leaders and lay members largely can't see how it can be otherwise.

It is hard for the orthodox not to think the ELCA has sold itself to the spirit of the age.  Indeed, given the history on how ELCA came to champion the cause of gay pastors in its ministry, the overall conviction that the stigma against gays should be removed came first--the theological justification was then reverse engineered.  Liberals will vehemently deny any such thing took place; but it is clear the mainline Churches had been casting around for plausible theological justification for years.

There is little hope the ELCA will backtrack and reinstate the traditional strictures on homosexuality.  Perhaps the leadership is right and in time all the laity will come around.  As with the vexing imposition of quotas, the leadership will tell itself that the laity will agree that it was the right thing to do.  What is clear is that the orthodox position will no longer be given voice in ELCA teachings nor its publications.

The question the orthodox face is "what do we do next?".   The apprehension the orthodox have is that, if the Church can see its way to do this, what will it see its way to do next?

THE QUESTION NONE OF US WANT TO ANSWER

Over at RD magazine, Hollis Phelps asked a question with which tends to make us uncomfortable.  Yet, the truth is, it is one I think almost all of us have wondered about at least to ourselves if not when we uncork the bottle and let our hair down among friends. 

Phelps takes the recent developments with the defrocking of Rev. Frank Schaefer by the United Methodist Church and the chastisement and "firing", Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson.

Rev. Frank Schaefer officiated his son’s gay wedding and as a result he was stripped of his ordination for forcefully and deliberately disregarding the teachings and discipline of his denomination.  For this Schaefer has become a Cause célèbre among gay activists and liberal Christians.

Phil Robertson on the other hand has raised the ire of liberals of all stripes (not to mention the guardians of the various "inclusive" pieties) for comments he made about homosexuality in GQ magazine.  His comments were, shall we say, quite critical.  As a result, citing the intolerance of divergent opinions by liberals and the powers that be, Robertson has become a rallying point among conservatives and traditional Christians.

Without getting into the right or wrong in these two different cases, Phelps broaches the taboo misgiving:

Both events have been the subject of intense, at times vitriolic, discussion on social media, especially, of course, among those who identify in one way or another as Christian. Both events have made clear once again the differences between “socially liberal” and “socially conservative” Christians when it comes to issues related especially to sexuality, with both sides appealing to the Bible in support of their opposing views.

 

Some of my more pastorally minded friends have intervened, urging mutual understanding and stressing unity among Christians. The sentiment generally goes something like, “Sure, we may disagree when it comes to issues such as homosexuality, but let’s remember that at the end of the day we all serve the same God.”

It’s a nice sentiment, one that is often appealed to to remind Christians that the church is, ultimately, “one body,” united in its common confession and worship of Jesus Christ, whom Christians take as God incarnate. In other words, the appeal is to some sort of transcendent commonality that unites the Christians across time and place despite differences, including differences on issues related to sexuality.

I’ve often wondered, however, if such a claim is accurate. Sure, it has theological merit and backing, but it tends to cover over the real differences that divide individuals and groups that identify themselves as Christian. I would suggest that if  we attend to these differences, there’s often not much in common between Christians who identity as “socially liberal” and “socially conservative.” In other words, I’d suggest that when disagreements among Christians flare up as they have in the past few days, we are not witnessing different expressions of an underlying, unitary tradition called Christianity. We are, rather, dealing with different “religions,” as separate from each other as one “religion” is normally taken from another.

Sure, “socially liberal” and “socially conservative” Christians share, to a certain extent and differences aside, a common book, a common language, and common practices. But if we dig further, if we do a little “thick description” as the anthropologist Clifford Geertz urged us, the extent of the commonalities is not at all clear. For instance, all Christians in one way or another take the Bible as a locus of authority, but how the Bible is read and how it functions as authoritative varies significantly for individuals and in denominations.

We only need to look at the difference between Frank Schaefer and Phil Robertson to see that this is the case. We often frame such differences as differences of interpretation, but perhaps it would be better to ask the question: Are they (Schaefer and Robertson, “liberal Christians” and “conservative Christians”) really reading the same book? I’m not so sure that they are.

Or take a practice such as baptism, which is, again, ubiquitous among those who identify as Christian. Is baptism in a Southern Baptist church the same things as in an Episcopal Church? At one level it is, since the practice in both contexts ultimately derives from a common source, Jesus’ baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But there is considerable difference between the two in when baptism is usually performed (believer/infant), how it functions (ordinance/sacrament), and its relationship to different understandings of community, sin, and salvation. Material similarities, in other words, don't necessarily mean that the practice is the same across contexts.

We could provide many more examples, and all of these would lead to one question: are “liberal Christians” and “conservative Christians” worshipping the same God? Again, I’m not so sure.

Such questions are sure to make many—on all sides—uncomfortable. But if we really want to understand the vast differences among those who identify as Christian, we should, perhaps, start thinking about these differences not in terms of degree, but in kind. That may not be theologically satisfying, at least initially, but it may be more descriptively accurate. 

Ok.  I am not prepared to declare that those Christians on the liberal side of the aisle are not my brothers; but one doesn't have to go the full distance with Phelps to acknowledge that he is getting at something. 

Long ago, a Lutheran pastor turned university professor and a bunch of us students were discussing the intricacies of Karl Barth or some other 20th century theologian--didn't seem to matter who.  In the middle, while mulling over his doubts about Luther's doctrine of baptism, he finally let it out.  Beholding the obstinate, divergent stances of his students, he said that within Christianity, across all denominations, there are really only two churches.  One liberal.  One conservative.  Both read from the same Scriptures.  Both use same words.  But we meant two entirely different thing by them.  Even in talking about Jesus, an outside observer would conclude we were talking about two different people who just happen to share the same name.

His considered opinion was that someday there would be a great sorting out with each side jelling into denominations of more like-minded consistency.  This may be the only way we can come to stand each other.

I suppose to some degree this is already happening.  From the ELCA has come the North American Lutheran Church.  The Anglican Church is on the verge of coming apart worldwide. Congregations of many communions has disassociated themselves from their respective denominations.  Even some traditionalists have taken the enormous step and escaped into Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Is Jesus really as tolerant, non-judgmental, and accepting as liberal Christians would have it?  Or is Jesus really such a catalyst for disunion among the men and women of the world as the traditionalists hold?  Is there really something called the brotherhood of man?  Or is the only commonality among men that we are objects of His love and precious little else?  How is the Bible to be read and used?

It may well be that how one answers these questions (along with a host of others equality crucial) tells more about oneself than is convenient.  With both Liberals and Traditionalists charging the other with selling out to some non-faithful ideology, I don't see the two sides making peace anytime soon in spite of all the protestations of fellowship and good-faith dialogue.  Especially when talking often times makes it all the worse.

Don't think I'm particularly happy about this.

“RUSSIA WILL RISE UP AND MEET ISRAEL ON THE PLAIN OF MEGIDDO FOR THE LAST BATTLE. ישראל AGAINST GOG AND MAGOG-- AND THEN JESUS COMES BACK AND, BOY, HE IS PISSED”

Revelation is my least favorite “book” in the bible. Why? During my childhood fundamentalist years (ages 0-9), Revelation received a vastly inordinate interest—subject to much verbal diarrhea—which I had to endure.  All sorts of exotic phantasicagorical stuff—the most I have ever heard in church.  I hated it.  (Of course, our college bull sessions about this, that, and whatever rank right up there at the very top.) There apparently is something sexy about the whole world blowing up.

It was/is commonly said that the Bible is so arranged that the earnest student proggesses through the entire Scriptures leading up to its very pinnacle at the end.  Revelation was the culmination of all that had gone before and itself served as a sort of post doctrinal study.  Even as a little Christian, I knew there was something amiss in this assessment.  I mean,  isn't the Gospel of John  far more important?

With the whore of Babylon being the Catholic Church, the ten horns of some monster being the European Common Market, the United States mixed in there somewhere, and the restoration of Israel, all was being laid out before our eyes for Christ's imminent return.  No doubt about it!

To all this, one might remind our prophesy scholars that Jesus Himself said that of that day and hour only the Father knows. (Mark 13:32).   With all this stuff you folk spend so much time figuring out so definitely, aren't you claiming to know something Jesus Himself said He doesn't know?  To which they would reply:  "Well. yes Jesus said that very thing.  But God left us so many clues in the Bible.  All we have to do is put them all together!"

There is no stopping these guys.

Once my mother, brother and I converted to Lutheranism (Well, more like married into the Lutheran Church.), all that fell to the wayside.  Much to my relief.  No more bad dreams about the Devil rising from some black pit!

Indeed, we Lutherans recite "He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.  From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead" from the Apostles' Creed and pretty much leave it at that.  Still, it is hard to wash out of your mind all those hours of wraithlike prophesy.

Years past and while in college, thank goodness, I received the medicinal corrective of a scholarly few weeks of historical/critical commentary on the A. Of St. John with all that “what this means in the original Greek”, contextualization, formgeschichte, and sitz im leben regalia in my college biblical studies class.  As I say, it was a major corrective to all that B.S. of my early years.

Still, if I never ever have to listen to any more verbosity on Revelation, it would not be a minute too soon.

Not that I will have a choice in the matter!

POPE WHAT’S HIS NAME

Sorry to say the jury is still out for me with this new Pope.  I am warming up to him as time passes.  Yet, just as I am about to tip my Lutheran hat to him, he makes some turkey statement to the press. 

I know.  I know.  One shouldn’t expect to believe the press will be fair and report

accurately what the Pope says—especially considering they have a variety of axes to grind.  Still there is the issue of what is fair and accurately reported and what is not.  One knows the Pope is never going to say abortion is a viable option or the Christian model of family should be given over to more modern, enlightened conceptions.  But what about economics?  Does he even know what he is talking about?  Or does he and the press have no idea what he actually is saying?

[As many are surprised to find out, many of the doubts and criticisms Francis has been making have been bouncing around Conservative circles for years.  While Anglo-American Conservatives lean toward free market capitalism, they are not purely so.  A good indication of this is Irving Kristol’s Two Cheers for Capitalism.  (Note that he withholds one cheer.)

One major objections is that, while Conservatives are all for the creative nature of capitalism, they are less than enthusiastic for many of its destructive properties—particularly to human community (in the social sense), tradition, and family.

Another is moral and compassionate.  William F. Buckley himself advocated what he called Christian economics/capitalism.  He set up a particular example to show what he meant.  Suppose a disaster fell on the land and you were left with the one good, uncontaminated well.  Your neighbors are thirsty and are in bad need for water.  Under capitalism, one should be free to charge as much as you can get in selling buckets of your water to your neighbors.  But as a faithful Christian, you should, indeed must, instead give it away.  In order words, capitalism with moral limits, love, and compassion for one’s neighbor.  How different would our present condition be now if our movers and shakers had followed even a little notion of this?]

So, we’ll see eventually what to make of this Pope.  Turkey or Saint? 

THEY DON’T WRITE ‘EM LIKE THAT ANYMORE.

I give a big thumbs up for O Come O Come Emmanuel in this past Sunday’s worship!  (12-01-2013)  One of the five church hymns I actually like!!!  (The rest can just go to…  Well, maybe not there exactly.)  Anyway, Anyway, O Come O Come Emmanuel just rocks!  Too bad the Church relegates it to the Advent/Christmas season these days.  That is, at least at ol’e Faith Lutheran Church where my wife and I grew up, O Come O Come Emmanuel was sung four or five times across the year. 

Ah me, days long gone by…