Last month an ELCA pastor from Atlanta was tried by the church for breaking denominational rules: He is in a (committed) homosexual relationship. You can find plenty of information about it here. The decision was handed down this week. You can find the full text of it here. As usual, I get most of my major ELCA news from Bob @ I Am A Christian Too(it’s surprising how little information gets to the church staff).
I don’t know where to start, with the commentary from the panel, or with Bob’s commentary on the panel. So I’ll go with stream of consciousness. Aannnnnd…begin:
In the event that the Committee on Appeals determines that paragraph b.4) of Definitions and Guidelines is unconstitutional[!], then this committee would find, with near unanimity, that there is nothing about Pastor Schmeling’s acknowledged and stipulated homosexual relationship that would impede the proclamation of the gospel or the right administration of the sacraments. If relieved of the specific requirements of Definitions and Guidelines and permitted to decide this case under the standards of constitution chapters seven and twenty, this committee would find almost unanimously that Pastor Schmeling is not engaged in conduct that is incompatible with the ministerial office, and would find with near unanimity that no discipline of any sort should be imposed against him.
Schmeling Discipline Hearing Committee
And Bob’s comment:
Translating: Pastor Schmeling is morally fit to be a pastor, it’s just the current rules that get in the way. Whether the rules are set aside on appeal or not, they recommend that the Churchwide Assembly change the Definitions and Guidelines and Visions and Expections, the two documents governing behavior of ELCA clergy, to remove the prohibition against committed same-sex relationships. This is so cool!
Sooo…he’s morally fit, except that the rules get in the way? Doesn’t morality imply following the rules? “Ken Lay was an upright individual, it’s just that the current laws against embezzlement get in the way.” Yeah, sounds great.
Bob then employs the “human face on the problem” argument. “It is easy to argue against gay rights or for a scriptural basis for condemning gays when it is in the abstract, but when someone that you know and love comes out as gay, it’s not so easy.” I believe that this is true for many people. But two things about it are notable: one, it wouldn’t be as easy, but we don’t do the right thing because it’s easy, we do it because it’s right. This is the problem too many conservative/orthodox churches and church-goers have…the easy way to deal with homosexuality is to condemn all homosexual persons on spec, whether they are abstaining and devout or not. The right thing is to love and accept everyone and “teach them to obey everything [Jesus has] commanded.” It’s obviously much harder.
The second thing: the fact that many people would rethink and even decide that one of the philosophical shams that passes for Christian theology is true based on the sexuality of a friend or family member speaks volumes about the moral character of the West. We have a whole society raised to believe that if something feels good, it is good. That’s what this comes down to. Pastor Brad is a nice man and has become loved by his congregation, and this makes him happy…how could it be wrong? This kind of reasoning has already gotten the church and the rest of society into all kinds of trouble. If you think about it hard enough you’ll recognize it’s effects.
Since, in my opinion, this can’t be said enough, I think it’s a wonderful testimony to the grace and power of God that Pr. Schemling’s sexuality hasn’t negatively affected his ministry. It’s not his sexuality that is the problem here; it’s his open, outspoken, and unapologetic defiance of the clear context for sexual activity set out in Scripture.
In reading up on this issue I’ve come across several theological arguments attempting to demonstrate God’s acceptance of homosexual union. These arguments, more than any other, highlight the underlying theologies of the progressive Christian movement. These theologies are characterized by a number of ideas, including that the Bible is written in a mythological form that uses miracles and the supernatural to convey “deeper truths” about God, and that the earliest Christians didn’t believe Jesus was God. Marcus Borg, one of the world’s leading progressive theologians, denies the divinity of Christ and his resurrection.
A couple of months back, after Bp. Schori’s original NYT Magazine and NPR interviews, I sent an email to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. For those of you who don’t know, the ELCA and the ECUSA have a relationship of “full communion”. This is a pretty significant linking, though it’s not really a merger. As an ELCA minister I was fairly disturbed by some of the comments she made, especially those saying that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. Bp. Hanson got back to me about a month ago, but my anti-spam got it, and I just noticed it yesterday.
Basically, I asked him what his reaction was, how it might affect the communion, and whether the ELCA would follow suit. This is what he said:
I received your email of November 28 in which you expressed concerns about a statement made by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Bishop Schori’s remarks about those who are saved represent a specific theological school of thought that became increasingly popular at the Second Vatican Council and beyond. While it does not deny that Christ is God’s revealed means of salvation, it opens the door for the possibility that God has the capability of saving fallen humanity through a variety of means. Such a position would be in accordance with the biblical principle that God desires the salvation of every human being. We are certain that God accomplishes such salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We are not certain that God also will act in other ways to proffer salvation. Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world.
In order to place the best construction on Presiding Bishop Schori’s intention, I think we can affirm that it is not up to us, fallen creatures that we are, to determine for God the full range of how God may act towards us. That is how I read her remark that we should not attempt to put God in a box. And while I might not choose to express myself in the same way as Presiding Bishop Schori has done, I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.
The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in constitutional provision 2.02., declares:
This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.
The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. As we celebrate the birth of our Savior among us, may you be filled with peace, joy, and hope.
Living in God’s amazing grace,
Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Well, Hanson just ticked up a couple of notches on my respect-o-meter. Typically i see a response that is worded so carefully as a load of B.S., but he makes a couple of strong points. Yes, God has only revealed himself to us in Jesus, and we know that salvation is found in Him. But Jesus told us that the Father desires the salvation of ever person. And we know he has the power to do anything he wants. So the possibility is open that there are other paths.
But the logical conclusion of this position is that we need to spread the Gospel as far and fast as we can and leave the rest to God. If He decides to save people through other means then that’s his prerogative…but we can’t count on it. We have to act as though there are no other options, because we can’t be sure. Similarly, as a 25 year-old I know that Social Security and Medicare might be there when I’m 67, but I better not count on it for my survival during retirement.
Bp. Schori was not saying this. It’s clear that she’s saying that we shouldn’t act as though Jesus is the only way. I find this difficult to do, because Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles were very clear that the nations would be saved through the cross. The nations…Gentiles…Goyim, with all their myriad religious traditions, would be saved through faith in Jesus of Nazareth. This is in stark opposition to her assertion that “people of other faith traditions approach God through their… own cultural contexts.” As a church leader she has a responsibility to be faithful to the Scriptures and lead people toward Christ, not make it easier for them to ignore him.
I hope that God chooses to save those who are pure in heart and spirit, but did not find Christ in life. Especially those who were hurt by bigoted, self-righteous, misguided Christians, and couldn’t bring themselves to return to the church that scarred them so badly. But if there were another way, why would Jesus have to die the way He did?
BTW, if your wondering about the random bold words, I decided to emphasize every time I referred to God using a third person masculine pronoun, because Bp. Hanson refused to do so. I understand that there’s a philosophical reason to avoid it, but Jesus called God “the Father” and that’s reason enough for me. Besides it’s stinkin’ hard to read a sentence like, “Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world,” or “I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.” Don’t they teach you not to do that in 7th grade, or something?
Already Making Waves (Revisited), Already Making Waves, A Spoiled Kid In A Weird Hat, More From the Schore, Schori’s Glory
The Washington Post has a new panel discussion called On Faith. They invited a bunch of religious experts to answer questions on the blog. The first question is: “If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?”
It’s easy to see that the question is slanted against Christians (and possibly Muslims), so we’re in a hole to begin with. There are two ways you can go. You can answer in such a way that you just barely don’t lie, and appease the crowd by saying that you’re willing to be swayed by arguments (even though you aren’t) and evidence and that you think their truth is as good as yours (even though you don’t). Or you can be honest, and say what you really feel.
Richard Land and Albert Mohler took the latter approach, and as you can imagine, got lambasted.
If you believe the Bible is the perfect truth, you have already shut down the conversation, for no new evidence would convince you otherwise. Why have the conversation at all?
Your belief in the Bible also reveals that you cannot see the evil within it. I realize that you were raised — and later, trained — to see it as “good,” but the fact that you can’t see the evil with your own eyes shows the extent of your indoctrination.
How sad that you have committed your life to spreading such nonsense.
———————————
As said above, there’s no way to have a legitimate conversation if you insist on the premise that the Bible is true. You can present an argument and try to come to that conclusion, but you’re starting out with a premise that a reasonable person won’t accept, and therefor it’s a conversation stopper.
———————————
What a joke- you have a book with some stories- it’s not revelation- no voice from the sky spoke to you- and if you believe that the Bible represents the word of the Creator than that Creator must be evil for all of the mayhem and killing HE/IT does with abandom. Please, spare me.
———————————
I’m not sure how anyone can have a reasonable conversation when the other party invokes faith. As Harris puts it, it’s a conversation stopper. How is one supposed to convince another that their contention is wrong, if the person won’t allow it?
The church is the only place that you will find people telling you not to question what you are told… anywhere else, this is encouraged. its pretty sad.
And on and on. What’s so wrong with a person being candid about what they believe? They’re personal beliefs, right? Why should I show up and say that I’m willing to be convinced that you’re right, if I’m not? What if I’ve had enough of these conversations to be secure in the conclusions I’ve come to?
What these people really want is for Christians who hold to the Bible as the true revelation of God to sit down and shut up, and start to agree with them. These people are just as bull-headed as they say we are, they just aren’t honest about it. A guy should be able to come out and say that he wants to hear your side to understand, but that he’s firmly planted on his side? It would seem that if you’re going to push for tolerance, you shouldn’t be trying to make people change their beliefs. You should be supporting the rights of Christians who say the things that Mohler and Land have said.
There are clearly visible left and right stances in this discussion. The problem with the left is they think everyone should agree with them, while the right says that we should agree to disagree. Sure, the left says they want to, unless they think you’re wrong. And of course, they only think you’re wrong, if you think you’re right.
The left’s tolerance (for religion) only extends to those who refuse to say they’re certain of their beliefs. Anyone who is certain is not tolerated, because they are intolerant. The unwillingness to accept someone else’s argument is what they assault us for, but they refuse to accept ours. When will the general public begin to see this?
My wife is a wonderful, intelligent woman, and a very hard worker. Last year she worked with a student from a local college, who we’ll call Beth. Beth was a psychology student, and feminist. She wouldn’t come right out and say it, but if you talked to her long enough, you’d know. My wife is still in college herself, working towards an education degree. She knows she’ll need it, because I probably won’t be topping any Forbes lists in our lifetime. But if you ask her what she wants to do, she’ll tell you she wants to be a wife and mother.
This is NOT okay with Beth. According to her the desire to stay home is socialized thinking that comes from our demonic, patriarchal society, and every woman who goes along with it is sending women back to the dark ages. Women should be out taking advantage of all the opportunities gained over the last 100 years, not submitting to the male dominated social image of a smiling housewife. They should be doing whatever their hearts desire…except staying home.
This seems to be the opinion of most feminists, judging from the response to a group started on the campus of the University of Virginia in 2004 called the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW). Shortly after the organization was founded the school paper ran cover art of “a woman dressed in a perfectly ironed pristine shirt with a checkered apron, connected to a machine with 12 babies popping out while stirring her batter and reading her recipe with the headline ‘Manifest Domesticity.’” Apparently if you disagree with a feminist you are a human version of Rosie from the Jetsons (without the quick wit).
I wonder what God thinks of the places of men and women in society? What did he intend? We know that women and men are different. Some people would have you think we aren’t; others want you to believe we just found out (and we’re totally surprised!); but we’ve known for all time. It’s clear that men and women are created to play different roles in the world and in their relationships.
Example 1: women have babies. Not that that’s their only function, but they do it. Men can’t pull that off (except for Ah-nold). Because God created women with the responsibility of bearing children, he also equipped them with the natural ability to care for them.
Example 2: men have more muscle. Not all men, but men in general have a higher muscle:fat ratio, and more total muscle than women. And men are constantly wanting to hit, chase, beat, and wrestle things (just watch any group of 6 year-old boys…or 20 year-olds). Could God have intended for men to hunt things?
Of course, there are exceptions. Men love their kids, and some women hold babies like they’re radioactive. Women play sports and some guys weigh 100 pounds fully dressed and soaking wet. But there’s a natural order. Ephesians 5:22-33. The husband is commanded to love, and the wife to submit. This submission isn’t one of servitude or inferiority, but trust. This tells women to trust their husbands, and in turn tells men to be worthy of their wives’ trust. They are to love and protect their wives’ as they would their own bodies.
I could try to stir up some controversy by letting you think that I believe all women need a man to tell them what to do, or that men should always be in charge. But that’s not the case. Each couple has the responsibilty to find Godly balance in their relationships. Society’s problem is that it continues to ignore the differences that are staring them in the face.
What ends up happening is that women, ignoring and even shunning their femininity, begin to act like men, in order to succeed. Some of these women actually believe that considering traits “masculine” and “feminine” is a construct of society, and we shouldn’t believe in it. But I don’t buy that. Sure there are some things that society, possibly unjustly, assigned to one side or the other, but the sides, and most of the traits assigned to them, are rooted in truth. The real women’s movement should be encouraging women to embrace their femininity in healthy and constructive ways. We know women are just as smart, just as capable, and just as hard working as men. You don’t have to act like us, too.
But hey, what do I know? I’m just a guy.
Blogs4God
