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…

THOU ART FAITHFUL TO THE CHILDREN OF MEN

While working on instructions for my funeral to be kept on file in my parish's office, I chose to have Psalm 90 to be one of the Scripture readings.  Psalm 90 has long been important to me since my sophomore year in college.  Nonetheless, I have always been unsatisfied with the last verse:  "Give us success in all we do".  So I decided to take a hand in writing my own paraphrase of the Psalm.  (However horrible that may sound.)  In the end, I may just retain Psalm 90 in the original and have this as a separate, personal "statement. 

The quote below is a rough rendering of what I came up with.  Mind…it is still a work in progress.  I would appreciate any and all suggestions in how to improve it.  After I wrote my first draft, I thought it was worthy of a modern day Shakespeare.  Since then, the pride of authorship has worn off and my own estimation of its quality has fallen several hundred notches.  Perhaps the average high school freshman could effortlessly do better.  I somewhat suspect so.

 

So anyway, here t'is.  Look it over.  Try not to lose your lunch.  And send suggestions by way of the comment box.  

 

Thanks.

 

Crabby Apple Mick Lee 

Thou art faithful to the children of men

And provide each according to their season

Thou feedst the creatures of the earth

And art mindful of the least of these

 

With the hosts of Heaven, may we praise Thy name

Let us awake in the morning filled with Thy sweetness

And may our future be as happy as our past was sad

The days we dwelt among the dead and shared our bread with ghosts 

Let Thy servants behold the work of Thine Hands

And in the world to come rejoice among the mountains of Heaven

All the we craft withers and is lost to the winds of the earth

But Thy goodness and mercy shall stand--now and forever of days

SOME THINGS REPUBLICANS NEVER LET GO

CURIOUS ASIDE OBAMA MADE TO BILL CLINTON  THE PRESS SOMEHOW MISSED DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM CEREMONY.

“The Republicans wanted me to make sure to get your neck measurements right.  Then they said something about inviting you to a special neck-tie party tonight.  Sounds like they got a real big shindig in mind.”