Educate yourself. Organize. Educate others.

Pr Ruth Frost has been talking to students, seminarians, conferences for years. Many of the people who vote on ELCA policies have heard the following:

Graced, gifted and gay:
Reflections on sexuality and spiritualities
by Pr. Ruth Frost

Pr. Ruth Frost is Associate Pastor for Outreach and Evangelism at St. Francis Lutheran Church, ELCA. This article is adapted from a talk she gave in 1992 to a meeting of the Lutheran Student Movement.

When I was born, there was no wise midwife present who could turn to my parents and say, "Congratulations! You have a lovely lesbian!" So my parents did what their parents did: took their baby home and never once questioned that one of them could be different.

There were clues to my difference, of course, but no one understood them or had a language for them, so we all just muddled through. By age three, I announced to my parents that I would accept only one doll into my young life and that it must be a boy doll. This was 1950 when boy dolls were scarce. My parents looked high and low for a boy doll and could not find one. They finally resorted to deception and bought a female baby-doll. They had a family friend sew boys' clothes for it and attach a male-styled fur piece to its head. So I got my first doll -- in drag. How prophetic!
By age four I was wearing my father's cast-off neckties every chance I could get, and had learned to tie a half-Windsor before I learned to tie my shoes. In fourth grade, my best friend was a boy, and together we made a pact to tell people we were cousins so people wouldn't tease us about the friendship. One day on the playground, I saw a group of little boys sniggering secretively over a deck of playing cards. Curious, I drew closer and discovered that one little boy had ransacked his father's personal effects for this deck and was making a killing selling it off card by card to the other boys.

I soon saw why. On the back of each card was a picture of Marilyn Monroe posed provocatively in the nude. As I caught a glimpse of her, I knew instantly that I wanted one, but I also knew I had to get it surreptitiously. Being a true friend, the little boy I called my "cousin" got one for me. That day in school I propped my desk top open a crack so I could look at that card all day. It was my most exciting day in school.

After school, I walked home carrying my card with feelings I did not understand and with no one to talk to about them. I threw away the card before I reached home.
That day was my first experience of sexual feelings. It was also the first time I was truly conscious of my difference. Most significantly, it was the first time I experienced shame because of it. Instinctively, I realized that this difference was not sanctioned in society. I had no language to talk about my awareness of difference but the few derogatory words I had heard used ("sissy," "fag," "homo," etc.) in school, words I did not yet fully understand but knew were not used positively.
By age thirteen, I was reading romance novels in which helpless "girls" got rescued by strong men who were rewarded for their bravery by a kiss from the grateful girls. Always, when I read these, I imagined myself in the body of the male hero rescuing and romancing the heroine. Giving myself a male body was the only way I knew how to be strong and how to enjoy the allure of a female body. While I delighted in these imaginary experiences of my sexuality, I told no one of them, because I had gradually learned I was not "normal."

After all, the world around me was heterosexual. All television I saw, all books I read, and all advertising I saw and heard bombarded me with heterosexual models for identity and for sexual expression in relationship. I was growing up in the midst of the most massive behavior modification and control plan any mad psychiatrist could ever have dreamed up for an emerging homosexual. My entire culture -- family, church and society -- were conspiring against my identity and my self-expression.
So I did what most of the rest of us who are in this ten percent of the population do: I assumed a false identity and tried to act my way into heterosexuality. Though I fell in love with women, I did everything in my power to deny my feelings and keep them at bay. When I was twenty-seven, I fell deeply in love with a twenty-three year old woman whom I became sexually involved with. In a panic, I broke off the relationship with her and married the first sensitive man whom I thought I could love. Ironically, he turned out to be gay.

After our divorce three years later, I swore off sexual expression altogether and decided that the only way to not be sexual was to be very spiritual. So I went to seminary. This proved to be no solution. In the seminary dorm, I was surrounded by healthy heterosexuals who were delightedly acting out their sexual desires in a variety of ways. There were, or course, homosexual students on campus as well as homosexual faculty, but I was too frightened to make friends with any of them. We all knew who we were, but we were so closeted in seminary that we were terrified of relating to one another. The power of fear and shame is the power to isolate people from support, thereby insuring conformity to heterosexist norms, or, failing that, at least insuring secrecy.

However, the seminary was giving me excellent tools for Biblical study and analysis. We were learning interesting things -- such as the status of women in ancient times. We learned that, in ancient Israel, Jewish religious law codes were written by men for men, that it was normative for men to legally own women and to have more than one wife; that women could not be responsible for any oaths they made but were always responsible for any sexual actions they took; and that men could divorce their wives simply by verbal decree, though women could not divorce their husbands. We also learned that anal rape of male strangers and prisoners was a popular method of subjugation and humiliation which Biblical writers roundly condemned, but that vaginal rape of women was overlooked by the Biblical writers unless it resulted in damage to a man's "property" through the death of "his" woman.

In short, we seminarians learned that scripture, like so much other history, is largely stories told by men about men and for men. We noticed that with few exceptions, women's voices, women's lives and women's loves were strangely absent except in affiliation with men's. Through this experience, many of us came to understand the powerful influences of racism, sexism and heterosexism that have permeated so many cultures and so many times, Biblical cultures and Biblical times not excepted.

But we seminarians also learned about the love of God and the ministry of Christ, calling us to be witnesses to the law of God in the love of neighbor as the self. Slowly, in the midst of this homophobic seminary community, I began to really believe the Gospel and to love my neighbor as myself -- all of myself. I began to imagine Christian community as dreamt of by the apostle Paul: a community without the usual divisions between male and female, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, but rather a community which understands itself as beautiful in its diversity and as the healing presence of Christ in the world. I began to appropriate (prefer appropriate) my baptism as that ritual which signifies not only the reception of the Holy Spirit but the overcoming of all human divisions.

I realized that the church can be a powerful instrument either of abuse or healing. Finally, I became convinced that the grace of God for homosexual people is our release from the tyranny of heterosexist shame, release from doctrines and policies that teach us to hate our own bodies and to deny ourselves the blessing of love in mutually trusting, empowering, full-bodied relationship.
So, grace for homosexual persons, and indeed all persons, is to be affirmed by God in our giftedness as sexual and spiritual persons, and to be challenged to become all we were created to be.

I invite you to imagine a different world than the one you inherited. Imagine a world in which there is no sexual shame and no sexual threat of any kind.
Young women, imagine never having to think about or guard against sexual assault, never having to guard against someone's penis being used as a weapon against you. Imagine being able to love your bodies freely, to see them as magnificently beautiful and as belonging solely to you, to give to another only as you please. Imagine yourself free of the responsibility to be the sexual watchguard for men. Imagine yourself free to take loving sexual initiatives with a man or free to accept the loving sexual initiatives of a woman. Imagine a world where there is no inequality in relationship, no power imbalance, no economic disparity, and no gender or sex role prescriptions for you. Imagine the possibility of relationship free from fear. Now, having imagined living with this freedom, what is it that you need and want for yourself as a sexual and spiritual person who loves herself as much as her neighbor?

Young men, imagine a world where your manhood is not measured by the size or activity of your penis. Imagine loving your body freely, imagine a world where erotic desire is not seen as dirty or pornographic but as a natural expression of created goodness. Imagine a relationship in which you do not carry the major responsibility for providing economic security or sexual initiative. Imagine a world where your best performance is that of love rather than sexual prowess. Imagine sexual expression as the source of intimacy and play, imagine that your genitals and those of your partner are nothing more and nothing less than an extension of your arms and mouth and eyes made for loving embrace. Imagine erotic expression as the power of connection. Imagine the wonderful journeys you can embark on with a partner you love and trust and who delights in his or her body as much as you do. Finally, imagine that as you express yourself, physically, sexually and emotionally, as you "make love" in all the ways love can be expressed and created, God looks upon you and smiles delightedly, pleased with your erotic beauty and imagination.
Is this a pipe dream in the age of AIDS and with the fear of unwanted pregnancies? I don't think so. If we offer people sex education to help them prevent STDS and unwanted pregnancies, we give them the tools with which to make wise choices that can lead to life-affirming relationships. In this way, we would help people claim their spiritual and sexual wholeness and use the gift of their sexuality wisely and joyfully. If we affirm sexuality in its richness and diversity -- heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality (in short, every responsible manifestation of sexuality) -- we will help people to look at what they want in relationships and trust them to tell us what they need. If we stop modeling sexual power as power and control over another and start modeling sexual power as the power of connection which is of both the spirit and the flesh, we will teach people life-affirming behavior and help them to resist what is life-denying. In this way, we can eradicate shame from sexuality.

If we see sexuality as shameful or the privilege only of those in heterosexual marriage, we deny the rights and needs of young adults not yet ready for marriage, of older adults who have become single again through death or divorce, of women who outnumber the male population in this country by 15 million, and of lesbian and gay relationships seeking support and guidance from family, church and society. If we teach people that there is clean sex and dirty sex and the difference is defined only by heterosexual marital privilege, we are failing them and creating a situation in which the church presides over who gets a license for sexual expression and when. This is as demeaning to the church as it is to the faithful.

Make no mistake: lesbian and gay people do not want immunity from sexual responsibility. We do not want to cast aside sexual ethics any more than heterosexual people do. But in being told that our sexuality is so unspeakably sinful that under no circumstances must we express it, we are being denied sexual responsibility and ethical guidance. This is a travesty. Sadly, we are not alone in this ethical void. The ELCA's position is like a "just say no" campaign against loving sexual expression outside of marriage, no matter what the circumstances or ages of the partners. It asks the faithful to turn over responsibility of their bodies and their desire for intimacy to an institution with its official head in the sand. Thus the church fails all people whose relationships lie outside the sanction of heterosexual marriage.

We are creating a church whose policies ask people of every age, orientation and gender identity to lie about who they are and what they do. Through the ELCA's document Visions and Expectations (for seminarians and clergy) the church has codified a double standard of relational intimacy and sexual expression for those outside mainstream heterosexuality and those inside it. To deny the benefits of marriage to homosexual persons and to require sexual celibacy of gay and lesbian persons (and bisexual persons by implication if they happen to be partnered to someone of the same gender) is both an unfair and ludicrous position for Lutherans to take, given Martin Luther's stance against celibacy and his own happiness in marriage.

The church's discriminatory policies have created a religious atmosphere of lies, secrets and silence for all of us. In their attempts to maintain unity at the expense of honesty, our religious leaders have sold out. For those of us who are lesbian, gay bisexual and transgendered, the church has sent a clear message that we are the expendable populations.

I am frightened for this church which I love. We have entered an era in the ELCA where power and control are becoming increasingly centralized and mature dissent stifled and responded to punitively. Those of us not represented in the institution's model of heterosexual marriage are allowing religious leaders who neither understand our reality nor respect it to define our lives for us. In sexual relations we would call this abusive. In family systems we would call this dysfunctional. Who will save this church, if not the people of God who dare to risk rejection and exclusion by their honesty?

Faithful prevail in Virginia despite Hanson

The bishops must have a list serv in which they share their wisdoom (no that's not a typo-we are doomed if what we here from them is their combined wisdom). And this list serv must be ELCA and ECUSA, because they say the same stuff. Often it is word for word. "Create space," is just an example of the phreases that popped up in ECUSA and quickly became bishspeak in ELCA.

"We (fill in the blank as either Lutherans or Episopalians depending if the bishop is ELCA or ECUSA) are not Fundamentalists" is the current rage this summer. Here is Mark Hanson last weekend:

"Hanson said he rejects a literalistic view of the Bible "in this culture so dominated by fundamentalism." Instead of relying on a "bibliocentric" version of Christian faith, "I believe in a triune God who reveals God's self to me in Scripture," Hanson said, "who is revealed in Christ, and who is revealed for us in the bread and wine" of Communion." Read the rest of the story here (with the good news that Hanson was presentt to see his rec three voted down).

Friends, we have got a bishop who thinks "centered in the Word" is a bad thing. Did you see what I saw? How did it get this way?

Now check this out. Here's a quote from another bishop:

"The Hebrew Scriptures give us holy and unique accounts of the way in which the Jews perceived God to be working among them. They provide us the historical religious underpinnings of God's activity in the Incarnation, ministry, death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus the Christ. We read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them because we still encounter God's challenge, promise, rebuke, healing, comfort, forgiveness, and reconciliation in them. But we do not count them inerrant, nor should we give any of them priority over the teachings of Jesus. Not the prophets, not the writings of Paul, not the Apocalypse of John. Many of them point to the Gospel, many attempt to provide apology for it, many help us understand it; but they do not equal it." Read the rest here

Only Fundamentalists believe what they read in the Bible. Good Lutherans and Episcoplains believe their bishop becasue the Triune God reveals Herself to them directly, okay.

Listen, I can't even follow some of these guys in their breatheless run-on sentences, but I do know enough to be suspicious, and I am beginning to believe that half of them are gnostics or worse.

Pray. Hard. Do not give up. It is an act of unfaith to say that the LORD cannot clean house in His own house. The answer is not, "Leave" the answer is "Kick butt." After all, that is what Jesus did to the other group of moneychangers.

South Dakota Solid (and Western Iowa, too)

Here's some good news for you from the South Dakota Synod Assembly.

I offer it especially for those of you who live in those synods that speak
in a very different voice.

Note that the resolution on the sexuality study recommendations passed by
78 percent.



Approved Resolution 4 - Further Study of Proposed Worship Resources:

-- Memorializing Churchwide Assembly to postpone approval and implementation of the proposed ELCA book of worship until at least 2007 Churchwide Assembly.

-- Memorializing Churchwide Assembly to authorize review process particularly for faithfulness to Lutheran theology and tradition.

-- Memorializing Churchwide Assembly to direct that these evaluations and details of proposed book of worship and other resources be made available to ELCA pastors and congregations at least one year before consideration by Churchwide Assembly.

-Approved Resolution 13 - Amending & Opposing Church Council Recommendations 492-128 (8 abstentions).

-- Memorializing Churchwide Assembly to amend the resolution proposed by the Church Council regarding Recommendation 2 by adding a third resolved which would establish an ELCA policy using the first portion of the 1993 Conference of Bishop's Statement.

- Memorializing Churchwide Assembly to reject the resolution proposed by the Church Council regarding Recommendation 3 and instead to affirm and uphold current ELCA policy and practices consistent with past understandings of Vision and Expectations, Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, and the social statements of the LCA and ALC

-Asking the synod's voting members to the 2005 Churchwide Assembly to prayerfully consider the sense of the synod in their voting at Orlando.

Here is a LINK to a 2-page report from the Synod Office that gives highlights of the Assembly. They also voted down recommendation three by a large margin.

Play Along, Kids!

"The Re-imagining the Diocese effort continues..."

OK, play along. The name of this game is "Guess the Lying Bishop?" Try and not look at the name and see if you can guess who it is. Go back and click on "The Re-imagining effort ..."

Say, have you noticed that every bishop in a liberal synod says two things: one, we are really rooted in Christ now; and two, we are in the worst financial shape we've ever been in. Funny, huh?

How come God does not seem to bless "re-imagining"?

Call it, Doctor.

The time of the death of historical understanding of the origins of the church and of Lutheran identity in Greater Milwaukee:

WHEREAS ... and WHEREAS ... and

WHEREAS a significant number of members and clergy of the ELCA have seen the presence and the fruits of the Holy Spirit in the lives of gay and lesbian persons who are single and others who are living in committed, responsible, loving relationships, whose lives give a daily testimony to the unconditional love of God in Jesus Christ in their families, in their congregations, in their work places, and in their communities, and

WHEREAS the first generation Church, in the face of great opposition from pious and loyal leaders and members, agreed to a more inclusive definition of church membership that no longer required the Mosaic tradition of circumcision – a radical, history-changing decision based almost totally on the testimony of Peter, Paul and others that they had seen in uncircumcised Gentiles the work of the Holy spirit and, based on their “Lutheran” conclusion: “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are,” (Acts 15:11) and

WHEREAS the Lutheran church has historically affirmed the centrality of the Gospel and Jesus Christ Himself as the prism through which the Church is to look as it interprets Scripture, shapes its teaching, and proclaims the life-changing Good News of God’s unconditional love for all people in Jesus Christ, and

WHEREAS failure of the Church to accept, affirm and bless gay and lesbian persons, their Spirit-filled faith and witness, as well as their relationships and families, is a serious matter of a negative witness to the entire gay/lesbian community and to the world at large, and

WHEREAS it has always been with great struggle that the Church has changed its stance on such watershed issues as the abolition of slavery, the end of child labor, the enfranchisement of women, the end of racial segregation and the ordination of women – yet the Church and the world are less oppressive and much healthier for the changes, and

WHEREAS the Greater Milwaukee Synod, and its congregations, are already enriched by the gifts of gay and lesbian persons who believe in Jesus Christ and whose lives are filled with the Sprit, many of them living in healthy, loving, committed unions, and

WHEREAS the unity of the Church does not hinge on complete agreement about such mysteries of human life as our sexuality, but on our faith in Jesus Christ and our openness to the Holy Spirit, therefore be it

RESOLVED that the Greater Milwaukee Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America memorialize the 2005 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, to

1. Witness to the unconditional love of God in Jesus Christ by affirming acceptance of gay and lesbian believers in Christ as congregational members on the same basis as other members.

2. Encourage congregations that find the full acceptance of gay and lesbian persons and pastors to be contrary to their understanding of the Gospel and of the Scriptures, to continue in prayerful study and discernment of God’s will in dialog with sisters and brothers in the ELCA.

3. Encourage congregations that find the full acceptance of gay and lesbian persons and pastors to be consistent with their understanding of the Gospel and of the Scriptures, to continue in prayerful study and discernment of God’s will in dialog with sisters and brothers in the ELCA.

4. Call upon all congregations of the ELCA to engage in ongoing prayer, study, discernment, walking with sisters and brothers in the lesbian/gay community, and partnering with other congregations for the purpose of mutual enrichment and growth, as outlined in recommendation one of the ELCA Studies on Sexuality Task Force Report.

This resolution was passed by the assembly"

I haven't seen such a collection of the lame arguments together in one place before.

We offer this as exhibit Q your honor. The GLBT lobby killed lutheran idenity and common sense.

A Bishop Prepares His Synod for Disaster by Calling It "Pruning"

"Our Lutheran identity is a crucial antidote to the moralistic,
therapeutic, biblically literalistic religious culture in which we are
embedded. We Lutherans do things differently and (if I may say)
better. But we have not had the courage of our convictions. In our
difficult discussions about human sexuality and the roles of gay and
lesbian persons in our church, we have too often thought, behaved and decided as if the Bible were a 'paper Pope.' For us Lutherans this is
not what sola scriptura means! And this points to the fact that we
have not effectively preached and taught the distinctives of our
Lutheran heritage: evangelical freedom, justification by grace, law
and gospel, the two kingdoms doctrine, that our Lord Jesus Christ is
living and present in our lives and churches, not lifelessly entombed
in the pages of a book, even a book like the Bible. I am convinced
that if we are true to our heritage, the Holy Spirit will prune our
branches, perhaps even growing smaller statistically in order to grow
more powerfully spiritually. For our stock in trade is not self-help,
pop-psychology nor moral certitude. It is, instead, the gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the power and the wisdom of God. This is the source
of our life, our love and our faith. How can we become comfortable
with our Lutheran distinctiveness? So comfortable that we can give
ourselves permission to grow smaller because of our distinctiveness
and yet comfortable enough to invite others, with us, to taste and see
that the Lord is good?"

Sounds good. Can't wait.

Looking for accountability in a bishop?

Looking for accountability in a bishop? Hanson says it ain't his fault.

"In an interview Friday, Hanson said he doesn't minimize the importance of the debate, but that he worries that "we're on the verge of defining the church on sexuality" rather than on "the Gospel of Jesus Christ as defined in word and sacrament."

"Hanson said he believes the debate of the sexuality issues has "matured" since the church's most recent study process began in 2001, but that it continues to be extremely polarizing in the culture and in the church. "There is increased anxiety about the impact" of decisions that might change church policy, he said.

"The recommendations of the national church task force and Church Council, he said, were designed "to provide some space for continued dialogue." He acknowledged, however, that they are likely to be viewed as going too far by those who believe Scripture is clear about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and not going far enough by those who view the issues as matters of injustice.

"As I face Orlando," Hanson said, "I am deeply committed to the unity of the ELCA, but I've come to recognize that keeping the church together is not my task singularly.

"Unity is given to us as God's gift. Even if some people or congregations decide they cannot stay within the denomination, I would regret that, but I would still believe we are related in Christ's church universal."

"Hanson, who is also serving as president of the Lutheran World Federation, said he hopes the sexuality debate won't completely overshadow the other work the ELCA will be exploring at its Orlando meeting."

From The Roanoke Times report

Does you find it interesting that the man who has lead us into these controversial decisions states that he does not believe it is his job "to keep the church together"? Brilliant, Mark. You're right, of course, it's not your job to keep it together. That would be Christ's job. But it is not your job to tear it apart, and that is what you did by promoting this debate in the uneven way you did. Instead of appointing a lop-sided, leaning to the left task force on sexuality, you could have made the task force fair. It was so leaning to the left, Lutheran Commentator nailed it: "our prediction is twofold: 1) The Task Force will propose some form of local option permitting congregations who want clergy who are practicing gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons; and 2) The votes of Task Force members will probably line up 11-2 or 10-3." See article here. Disgustingly accurate.

In North Carolina, all three recomendations were voted down (YEAH!) but interestingly "Rev. Leonard H. Bolick, the presiding bishop, declared the motion to pass, but members of the opposition requested a written ballot, which was counted quickly."

"The assembly voted 319-251 to adopt the resolution, which calls on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly to welcome people regardless of their sexual orientation — but to continue to not recognize or bless same-sex unions and to not ordain practicing homosexuals as clergy."

Written ballots were the way to go in NC!

"By passing the resolution, voting members struck down an opposing call to adopt three recommendations the ELCA approved in April that would ask church members to try to live together despite disagreements and allow exceptions to the policy of not ordaining homosexual clergy.

Proponents of the passed resolution based their arguments on a strict interpretation of scripture and the perceived ambiguity of the ELCA's recommendations.

"The recommendations are purveyors of mischief," said Larry Yoder, a member of the Covenant Theological Work Group, a team of North Carolina clergy appointed in 2002 to study sexuality issues."

We haven't the time to check other synods, and recommend you go to www.goodsoil.org and see!

More Talking Points

From a pastor in Metro NY:

"This question about granting exceptions to non-celibate clergy is a church dividing issue. Simply saying that it isn't is not an answer, and appealing to unity is not an acceptible strategy. A case is decided on its merits. What was once a theological argument about "doing the right thing" is now, most definitely, a legal issue, and legal issues have to be argued on merit.

The revisionists give responses to our questions which do not satisfy which lead us to the conclusion that they have convinced people who wanted to be convinced. The ELCA is going to go ahead on the basis of “Because I said so” or “Because I can.” We watched the Task Force, the Council of Bishops; the joint meeting of Division for Congregational Ministry and Church in Society, the Presiding Bishop, and then finally, the Church fail to safeguard this Church. The Task Force, whose conclusions was foretold by the appointment of a liberal majority, by which witnesses they heard, by the works cited in the footnotes, by their refusal to deal with the real expert in the field Prof. Robert Gagnon. A quick story to show how preconceived was the mindset of the majority. A friend of mine of 20 years told me last fall that he had his bishop ask if the task force had received any testimony from ex-gays. He suspected they had not because they are dismissed out of hand by people who want to believe that people are born homosexual rather than it being a conditioned response. He flew to Chicago and gave his testimony that he had practiced homosexuality from his teens but was miserable until he found a counselor who recommended him to the right program. He is now married with four children. He told me that at the end of his testimony the committee members looked at one another with “Oh No!” on their faces because they had never bothered to even consider that people like him existed. That only happens because of pre-conceived notions, which of course, can make you as good as blind.

Why are we acting in such a blind manner? Through Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine we have gained first-hand knowledge of the decline and dissent that is leading to schism in the ECUSA. We have spoken to Lutherans who say this is all adiaphora and it is us traditionalists who will be guilty of schism. Such an answer is breathtaking in its blindness.

Adiaphora? We have a question here that could not be more fundamental. Why do we know what we know? All the questions have been laid out, all the answers given by both sides. The traditionalists have serious questions which have yet to be answered. They are questions legal, scientific, theological, and epistemological. How do we know what we know? What is our basis?

Argument one: Legal. “What are the legal ramifications for congregations should this go through?”

Argument two: Scientific. This appears to me to entail a conviction that a number of empirical questions concerning homosexuality have been settled including the question of the developmental origins of homosexuality. You seem to be teaching that it is a settled matter that homosexuality is biologically innate and therefore irremediable. If this is so can you tell me the scientific authorities that you find persuasive? I cannot find a single credible scientific authority who believes that such a complex human behavior as homosexuality can be explained by a model of simple biological determinism.

There was a recent news story about research in Sweden It shouldn’t take more than an introduction to logic class to know that there is a difference between knowing that an event occurs and establishing the cause of the event. This experiment has shown conclusively that homosexual men are turned on sexually by smells associated with other men. One hopes it did not cost too much to find this out.
Argument three: Biblical If you dismiss the prohibition against homosexual acts in Leviticus as part of code of ritual purity which is not binding on Christians. In Leviticus there are also prohibitions against adultery and incest. Are these to be dismissed as well? If not why?

With regard to the text in Romans 1, some teach that Paul is not condemning homosexual acts by homosexually oriented persons but homosexual acts by heterosexually oriented persons. I feel that engaging in debate on particular texts is pointless if you are asking me to be bound by an innovative and exegetically weak interpretation of a text. The wisdom of Scripture and the weight of tradition cannot be seen as carved in stone, but neither can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant or outdated. The onus is upon those who propose change, not those entrusted with preservation. The revisionists must bring forth a clear winning argument, not a proposal or complaint or even a standstill, and I can tell you that has not happened in any of the Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, or Wesleyan traditions. The church is obligated out of concern for the well-being of society to refuse to ordain practicing homosexual persons to public ministry and to refuse to endorse homosexual practice as a legitimate expression of one's sexuality.

Argument four: Theological, Lutheran, law includes natural law. God works through his Word to redeem creation. He also works to preserve it. If the gospel is the means by which God redeems and liberates, the law is the means by which God preserves life. Both Old Testament and New Testament deal with matters of sexual relations in terms of law, not gospel.

Let me say a bit about the purpose of law. As children of God, justified by faith in Christ, our relationship to God is defined by the gospel. But because we still remain members of a fallen creation in bondage to sin, our relationship to one another is defined by law. There is need for some structuring of our relationship to one another. The weak need protection against the strong; all of us need protection from the effects of our "evil lust and inclinations," as the Augsburg Confession puts it. We mean by "law" the order by which the creation is preserved from destruction and chaos. Our tradition has chosen to speak of a "natural law" rather than a "divine law" to characterize the structures by which evil is restrained and life ordered for the good of all. We do not believe there is a single heavenly code which religious people know better than others. "Natural law,' through which God ordains order, is embodied in human codes- some better, some worse.

In the realm of the law, reason and not revelation is primary. God wills order for our well-being, and we are given the gift of reason and common sense to derive laws to that end. The question to ask is if there are good reasons to make rules limiting the right to sexual expression. If so, given the public character of pastoral ministry and the exemplary nature of that office, we would be obliged to insist that pastors abide by such rules and that the church do nothing to undermine them for the rest of society. Our specific question has to do with homosexual practice.
It is not accidental that every society has been careful to regulate matters dealing with sexuality, making them matters of law or taboo. The bearing and training of children is essential to the survival of our species. At least as basic is our relationship to one another as males and females. The last decades have witnessed revolutions in our view of gender roles, but even for us moderns there are differences between males and females that must be regulated for the sake of our survival and well-being. In speaking of regulating matters of sexuality, we are dealing with society's rights and not individual rights. When sexual relations go wrong the harm inflicted on society is considerable. And when we speak of such regulations, we are taking seriously the insistence of our tradition that what is native to us as sexual beings is corrupted by sin. Laws are the way society protects itself and its members against the effects of sin and evil. God, as creator, has a stake in that protection as well.

The way we think about homosexuality has first to do with the law. Rules about homosexual practice arise from the need for order in the area of sexual expression, just as do the host of rules about marriage. We define, to some degree, what is "natural' to provide boundaries for our protection and to encourage actions beneficial to society. It is 'unnatural' for brothers and sisters to marry. The Old Testament offers few reasons to support such rules. We have enacted such rules into law, not simply because they are in the Bible, but because we can offer good reasons for them: it is genetically unwise to foster such unions. The law protects all of us by ruling out marriages between blood relatives.

IN THE OT CODES, IN THE TABLE OF DUTIES IN EPH AND COL AND I PETER, THE STRUCTURING OF THE WORLD TAKES SPECIAL PAINS TO PROTECT FAMILY. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE WORLD MUST BE ORDERED, AND THAT AT THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURES ARE PARENTS AND CHILDREN. HUSBANDS, WIVES, AND CHILDREN ARE ASSIGNED ROLES.
WIVES AND CHILDREN IN PARTICULAR ARE ACCORDED PROTECTION FROM FAITHLESS FATHERS AND HUSBANDS (THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE PROHIBITION OF DIVORCE IN MARK 10). GENDER ROLES ARE ORDERED TO FOSTER THE RAISING OF CHILDREN - A MATTER IN WHICH SOCIETY HAS EVERYTHING AT STAKE. AND THEY ARE DISCUSSED IN A WAY THAT SEEKS TO MAKE ORDERED LIFE POSSIBLE.

Argument five: epistemological We hear contemporary society has an understanding of homosexual orientation that the original biblical authors did not have. Are there sources for this “new understanding” in addition to the self-reporting of homosexual experience? It appears to me that you are setting up experience in this sense as a sort of theological trump card which trumps the Bible, the moral tradition of the church and even appeal to the natural and social sciences. This looks to me like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, a claim by an elite to a privileged form of knowledge not available to the uninitiated. Do I misunderstand your reliance on experience?

Many kinds of experience with regard to homosexuality are reported including the experience of those, including priests of this church, who have experienced the healing of homosexuality. On what basis do we decide how much authority to give to self reported experience? Such “testimony” has never been thought a basis for overturning the moral tradition of the church before in Anglicanism. Why do you think it should be given such an authoritative role now? Why do you privilege Gay “experience” over ex-Gay experience”?
Argument six: theological. Is this not leading us into a different religion? Is this not a form of Gnosticism? Revisionists say “the Holy Spirit is teaching the church a new thing.” Again this sounds like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, like the claim of Joseph Smith or Rev Moon that the church has misunderstood its scriptures until now and that a new key has been given (in this case contemporary Gay theory) which unlocks the hitherto hidden meaning of scriptures which is unavailable to the ordinary reader. How do the principles of interpretation you propose avoid becoming the latest false religion?

In practical terms, it means that discussions within the church cannot begin with particular instances and individual experience. That may work in law courts, where lawyers and judges presumably know the law and seek to understand a particular case within that framework. Within the church, ‘the law' (understood in scriptural and traditional terms as the structures by which God preserves the created order from destruction and orders human life) is what is least clear. We would do a great service to the church by providing an example of how to think about individual behavior within the realm of the law. We may expect difficulty here in a society that is committed to individual rights and often seems powerless to think productively and creatively about the well-being of the neighbor.
This denomination needs to come up with satisfactory answers to all the above six questions before changing any policy. Emotional appeals to love, tolerance and inclusivity coupled with weak theological arguments do not approach what is necessary."

Talking Points

In our deliberations we should be clear about what the biblical evidence is and how it is to be interpreted. The issue Scripture is concerned with is sexual expression which is a matter relating to the well-being of God's creation that is in bondage to sin and in need of regulation as well as redemption. The consistent testimony of the Old Testament and the New Testament is that sex outside of marriage is a danger to society. Given the consistency and the persistence of such testimony, our question probably ought to be whether good reasons exist for rejecting those opinions.
There are few mysteries about the relevant biblical material for regarding homosexual activity as acceptable behavior. It has been thoroughly discussed and there is no basis for any sexual expression outside marriage. In Romans 1, Paul is embarrassingly frank about homosexual acts. When he wanted to find a way to depict a world alienated from God, he as well as Jesus, Ezekiel and others could find no more graphic example of rebellion than Sodom. The argument that Scripture only condemns homosexual rape has not been made and we could discuss it if we had more than three minutes.
Such acts are used as an example of alienation from God. This point deserves emphasis: for Paul sexual improprieties are tied directly to "not knowing God' (1 Thess 4:3-8; Rom 1:18-27). There are matters about which Paul is willing to allow more than one view (e.g., marriage; cf. 1 Cor 7:6-7, 12-16, 25ff). In other instances, what Paul says in one letter must be balanced by what he says in another (I Cor 11:2-16 and Col 3:26-28), but comments about sexual immorality are not of this sort: Paul is consistent.
People have grown accustomed to expecting a "however" from biblical commentators at this point-a sudden shift in the argument that demonstrates the one-sidedness of Paul's views or their cultural relativity, perhaps contrasting them to what Jesus said. There is no relief in the Gospels, of course, where Jesus' words about sexual expression are less compromising than Paul's (Mark 10:2-12 or Matt 19:10-12). People expect of interpreters is a way around difficult texts, perhaps even a way to make the Bible say the opposite of what it seems to say. Some seek refuge in a divine law that offers absolute clarity and assurance-and a weapon to be used against those who are different. Others view the enemy in church and society as a conservative view of marriage and sexuality, who believe teachers in the church need to combat conservatism and legalism in the interests of the 'freedom of the gospel.' In fact, the greater danger in our society may well be a nihilism that acknowledges no values outside individual freedom. It is possible that the greater danger in our time is the threat to the stable social order that makes it possible for people to simply live together as man and wife without being a man and woman married together legally. When discussing such matters as sexual expression, we ought to begin our conversation by respecting what the Bible says. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors are clear and consistent in maintaining that sexual relations between members of the same sex (and between members of the opposite sex outside marriage) violate God's will for the creation. It should be said that "however" is necessary at another point. Discussions about homosexuality and illicit intercourse must finally turn to how to be neighbor to homosexual persons. Jesus taught his followers a stringent view of sexual expression while seeking to associate with sinners of all sorts. Paul's dealing with his churches proceeded from an insistence that all have sinned and fallen short, and that God's saving righteousness has been revealed apart from law. God's saving grace is for homosexual persons as well as for sinners of all sorts. In our efforts to understand the gospel, however, we cannot collapse law into gospel. As forgiven sinners, we are freed to serve those for whom Christ has died. Out of respect for our neighbors and concern for the well-being of creation, we must work for a just order, but same-sex unions, and especially for the ordained, cannot be argued as being a part of it.

Pray

Keep the participants of the following synod assemblies in your prayers:

Alaska Synod, June 2 - 4

Greater Milwaukee Synod, June 2-4

Nebraska Synod, June 2 - 4

New England, June 2 - 4

North Carolina, June 2 - 4

Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast, June 2 - 4

Central States, June 2 - 5

East-Central Synod of Wisconsin, June 3 - 4

Northwest Wisconsin, June 3 - 4

West Virginia-Western Maryland, June 3 - 4

Western North Dakota, June 3 - 4

South Dakota, June 3 - 5

Southeastern Synod, June 3 - 5

Virginia, June 3 - 5

Upstate New York, June 5 - 7


Luther Johnson
SW MN synod





A CALL TO PRAYER:

We are facing critical issues and critical times. We need to be in prayer. Please join us in praying for:

I. SYNOD ASSEMBLIES
+ Voting members
+ Your synod bishop
+ WordAlone / Solid Rock movement planners
+ Solid Rock / WordAlone issues & resolutions


II. CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY (Aug 8 - 14)
A. PEOPLE
+ Voting members from your area: __________________
+ Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson
+ Conference of Bishops
+ Those demonstrating on behalf of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender issues
+ WordAlone / Solid Rock movement planners


B. ISSUES
+ Shall we ordain practicing gay & lesbian candidates?
+ Shall we perform "blessings" of same sex unions?
+ Recommendations of the ELCA Church Council
+ RENEWING WORSHIP: vote on proposed new hymnal (ie: Approve or Delay)
+ Establish full communion with Methodist Church: vote
+ Solid Rock / WordAlone issues & resolutions



C. PRAY FOR:
...the Holy Spirit to find open & receptive hearts
...that faithfulness to Jesus Christ and His Word will prevail
...that voting members will vote the courage of their convictions
...a vision of renewal in the Word and Lutheran Confessions
...Truth to trump political correctness
...a spirit of repentance, willing to turn toward God.
...a spirit of humility in the face of tasks that dwarf us
...a desire that Christ may be glorified in all that we do
...that all may sense the profound consequences that will follow; throughout the Christian world.

Pontius Bishop Pilate

Shrimp here: The following comes from a certain bitterness born of hearing many speaches while watching many parishes close. It is not meant to personally condemn any individuals as much as castigate the group as a whole.

"Speaking of blithering idiots, er, I mean bishops (did we say already that we won't be happy until all of them--Ok, maybe about six will be spared if they explain why they weren't louder in their defense of orthodoxy--serve prison sentences for malfeasance), I happened to run across this gem of an elca news release. It goes back to the BIG SPIN they tried after the release of TFR. How's this for lyin' through your teeth? (Now remember, they knew how upset the majority of the membership was going to be because two-thirds took the trouble to fill in their asinine forms and said NO CHANGE)

OK, let's start with Prezbish:

"The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, did not comment on the report's contents [that should give you a hint about how bad this was going to be-even he knew it was best not to get into anything he could get pinned down on later, better to be very, very vague and say things like "We thank you for your hard work"]but reminded the ELCA that the "work is not done, nor have decisions been made."
"The task force report and recommendations give focus to our continuing conversations moving toward decisions at the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando," Hanson said. "I am deeply thankful for and proud of the people of this church for the way we have discussed sensitive issues. I have witnessed a church praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, studying the Scriptures, engaging in dialogue, challenging and listening in a climate of mutual respect. These conversations have taken place within a deep concern for the unity of the church and the mission to which God calls us for the life of the world. I trust these will be the marks of our continued work as we pray, study and share comments on this report and recommendations."

You got that? We were all praying, we were all being guided by the Holy Spirit, we were all deeply concerned about ... Give me a break, this is POLITICS FOLKS it has nothing to do with religion for the folks who are trying to force this upon us. As Carl Braaten says, "If doesn't come from Scripture, it doesn't come from tradition, it has to come from culture."


Now get ready, let's do a perp walk:

"Here is a sampling of comments in letters, news releases and statements from ELCA synod bishops:

+ The Rev. Roy G. Almquist, bishop of the ELCA Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, Norristown -- "I am frankly encouraged that so much of the recommendations by the task force encourages us to address this sensitive issue pastorally rather than legislatively."

Yea, that would be the pastoral highway patrolman who does not give you a ticket for breaking the speed limit. We're with you Roy, given the way people are already driving, if they choose to cross lanes and drive in the opposite direction, you pull them over and counsel them. We feel much safer.

"We need to address issues of poverty and injustice in our nation; we need to focus on outreach and witness, particularly to young Americans and immigrant people; and we need to strengthen and undergird our congregations. These concerns require that we come together and rise above any one divisive topic."

Translation: this issue is going to kill the church, can we please talk about something else?

+ The Rev. Edward R. Benoway, bishop of the ELCA Florida-Bahamas Synod, Tampa, Fla. -- "While I understand and appreciate that the recommendations affirm the present practices of the church as is reflected by the majority response in the church, it is also good to hear the position of the minority and to be open to discover ways in which to follow the Spirit's leading in not only welcoming but also including those who are different from us in the ministry that God gives us."

Translation: ER, you guys sure you want to go ahead? I looked over my shoulder and no one is following me?

+ The Rev. Robert D. Berg, bishop of the ELCA Northwest Synod of Wisconsin, Rice Lake -- "The task force believes this is not a change in policy, but as I see it, it clearly is at least a change in practice which is not consistent with the current policy. For this reason, I expect there will be considerable debate regarding this [third] recommendation."

Berg speaks English, gets to keep his job.

+ The Rev. Paul J. Blom, bishop of the ELCA Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod, Houston -- "This [first] is by far the most important recommendation. It is the foundation of the entire report as well as the basis of further discussion on any topic where we disagree."

Blom is brainless. Unity is spin, its nothing else. Unity in itself has no moreal or religious value.

+ The Rev. Stephen P. Bouman, bishop of the ELCA Metropolitan New York Synod -- "The report is honest about our disagreements, does not seek to force a false unity, declined to change existing policy regarding same-sex unions (left to pastoral discretion) and standards for ordination (celibacy outside of marriage), but left pastoral room and space in the application of these standards. Â… Those hoping that the proposals would call for full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons into the church will be disappointed. Those hoping [for] no change in the policies and no pastoral discretion in their applications will also probably be disappointed."

Translation: Bouman wants to be your next Prezbish and is very good at saying, "Look. I am standing in the middle. I am a moderate see." Ocoursese, he does this while neveinvestigatingin much less disciplining any gays only investigating heterosexuals while bishop in one of the synods most populated by active gays. When it hits the fan he will say his hands are clean, no charges were brought forward.

+ The Rev. David L. deFreese, bishop of the ELCA Nebraska Synod, Omaha -- "We are a church that has always publicly nailed issues to the door so all could discuss them. ... The church can offer a safe, insightful place to talk about hard issues. I am grateful for how our church has conducted this conversation."

Translation: deFreese is grateful that talk is cheap.

+ The Rev. Richard J. Foss, bishop of the ELCA Eastern North Dakota Synod, Fargo -- "The first recommendation is crucial, i.e., [that] the task force urges us all to continue to find ways to live together in the midst of various issues upon which we don't all agree. ... The report clearly states that the biblical-theological case of changing our current policies has not been made, and thus recommends maintaining our current standards; at the same time, they [task force members] tried to find a way to create space to live together acknowledging strong and differing understandings. Â… I believe that the task force had excellent intentions, did hard, faithful work on our behalf, and has provided a clear picture of the current complexities in this church."

Translation: Foss is a double-speak wizard.

+ The Rev. Carol S. Hendrix, bishop of the Lower Susquehanna Synod, Harrisburg, Pa. -- "As bishop of the Lower Susquehanna Synod, I will continue to advocate for establishing consistent policies and practices in the ELCA that maintain our current standards for ordination and that do not provide for the blessing of same-sex relationships. At the same time, I affirm the ELCA's position to welcome gay and lesbian people to participate fully in the life of its congregations and to reject discrimination, assault and harassment of these individuals."

Hendrix comes off pretty good. She get high marks.

+ The Rev. Callon Holloway Jr., bishop of the ELCA Southern Ohio Synod, Columbus -- "Caring for all people, regardless of their place in life, is always a very high priority and responsibility of us all. That will guide my exercise of responsibility and how I will seek to amend this particular [third] recommendation." [Holloway said a policy that would allow for divergent practice could create distrust and confusion.]

Holloway keeps his job.

+ The Rev. Marie C. Jerge, bishop of the ELCA Upstate New York Synod, Syracuse -- "I find the task force report's prayerful and pastoral approach to be consistent with the Lutheran tradition. When there is significant disagreement, this church has often turned to pastoral discretion and discernment. The intent is that the church will continue to be in dialogue around issues about which we don't agree."

There is no defense for such naivite. Surrounding people in prayer was double-speak for blessing same-sex unions, wasn't it?

+ The Rev. Craig E. Johnson, bishop of the ELCA Minneapolis Area Synod -- "I am grateful for the space which these recommendations propose to give to congregations and synods. These recommendations allow the discernment process concerning sexuality to continue because there are deeply held differences of opinion in our church."

Johnson will be grateful if he has a job in a few months.

+ The Rev. H. Gerard Knoche, bishop of the ELCA Delaware-Maryland Synod, Baltimore -- "My hope is that we can model for the world a new way of dealing with strongly held disagreements, a way that is different from what we find in the society around us. Our unity in our common baptism and our common sharing of the Lord's Supper should be more important than these issues about which we have not yet found agreement. Pray for our church, pray for the Church Council, pray for the Spirit to lead us into all truth."

Well Knoche, we have been praying and we will, but do you think ycoulduld find some spine, too?

+ The Rev. Michael A. Last, bishop of the ELCA Western Iowa Synod, Storm Lake -- "What's new is the encouragement of the task force to 'create space' of compassion for a diversity of beliefs among conscience-bound people of faith where there is no consensus on these matters of the blessings of same-sex unions, nor ordination, consecration, commissioning of non-celibate gay or lesbian individuals."

Brainless. I think this is the guy who told his assembly, "We've only had four years of this, it takes a generation to accomplish this kind of brainwashing, er, I mean change in beliefs."

+ The Rev. A. Donald Main, bishop of the ELCA Upper Susquehanna Synod, Lewisburg, Pa. -- "I am basically supportive of the three recommendations presented by the task force.... This option [recommendation three] has many problems but especially goes against my understanding of the ecclesiology of the ELCA."

Well, I'm basically going to ask you to not run for reelection because you did not say anything substantive when you had a chance.

+ The Rev. Gerald L. Mansholt, bishop of the ELCA Central States Synod, Kansas City, Mo. -- "I encourage all in this synod to read the report carefully and to continue the conversations around these difficult issues in respectful ways."

Hey, Mansholt, what do you think, another 10 years be enough talk? Can we wait until all the 75% of our rural and urban parishes that are in deep trouble officially close? Will then be enough time?

+ The Rev. David G. Mullen, bishop of the ELCA Sierra Pacific Synod, Oakland, Calif. -- "We need to allow for the consciences of all good-hearted ELCA Lutherans to be heard and given room in the church. We need to allow for gay and lesbian leadership to be acknowledged, experienced and reflected upon by the church."

I've heard this guy is sold GLBT and even closed immigrant ministribecausesue they did not support heresy, now I believe it.

+ The Rev. Michael J. Neils, bishop of the ELCA Grand Canyon Synod, Phoenix -- "The task force report recommends that existing practice be continued and our standards be upheld but suggests that if there is departure from our normative practice based on conscience and for the sake of mission that in some instances discretion may be used by bishops and synods in determining possible disciplinary action. Our church does not take stands of conscience lightly. ... Our church body is handling a very difficult set of issues with grace, patience, trust and respect for both individual conscience and traditional Lutheran teaching.... I affirm the task force recommendation that we stay focused on that mission. The other two recommendations are less clear to me."

Translation: They used a lot of big words and run on sentences and I don't really understand what they were saying and if I use a lot of words but make them small will you think I am a good bishop?

+ The Rev. Richard R. Omland, bishop of the ELCA Montana Synod, Great Falls -- "It has become clear to the task force that the disagreement over these issues before the church is deep, pervasive, multi-faceted and multi-layered. This church is not of one mind. How true these words ring! If one of the purposes of the Law is to show us our sinfulness by giving us a clear picture of ourselves, this report has done the job. The key challenge -- and good news -- comes to us all in the test of recommendation one as it recommends the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concentrate on finding ways to live together in the midst of our disagreements. I'm heartily in agreement with this and call upon us all to work together to make this happen."

Huh?

+ The Rev. Margaret G. Payne, bishop of the ELCA New England Synod, Worcester, Mass. -- "The intent of the recommendations is to preserve the present written policy of the church while creating a space for further study, experience and discernment together of the role of gay and lesbian people in the ELCA. The task force is acutely aware of the problems and limitations associated with the recommendations, yet hopeful that this report can initiate a new phase of churchwide discussion that will result in resolutions that are wise and hopeful for the Churchwide Assembly in August 2005."

Please.

+ The Rev. Peter Rogness, bishop of the ELCA St. Paul (Minn.) Area Synod -- "The ELCA is a very public church. This report comes from listening to thousands of responses to this point, and will be shaped by responses and conversations in congregations, synods, among laity and clergy, throughout this church."

This report comes from listening and ignoring what they didn't like.

+ The Rev. David R. Strobel, bishop of the ELCA Northeastern Pennsylvania Synod, Wescosville, Pa. -- "I am confident that we can find common ground in spite of our differences and continue to work together in mutual respect for the sake of the mission of the church in northeastern Pennsylvania."

Well, we got a big surprise for you Dave. Common ground there is little in a polarized nation, and if you check you will see you have little mission in you neck of the woods.

+ The Rev. Ronald B. Warren, bishop of the ELCA Southeastern Synod, Atlanta
-- "Because I find sections of the report of the task force confusing, and because I think recommendation three is contrary to this church's position on sexual ethics (see Vision and Expectations at http://www.elca.org/ministry/documents.html), I am, therefore, unable to support the report and its recommendations in their present form. One area of the task force report of which I am in full agreement is a portion of recommendation one, which reads: "the task force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements."

Warren keeps his job on this one.

+ The Rev. Martin D. Wells, bishop of the ELCA Eastern-Idaho Synod, Spokane, Wash. -- "This was a week to be proud of our church. The release of our task force recommendations confirms what we have experienced: a careful, faithful, biblical journey into questions of human sexuality.... I look forward to our church's conversation over the next seven months. I support these recommendations as a good and healthy way to bring focus and clarity to the next phase of our conversation."

Wells is so sold liberal, so sold. Nice guy though.

+ The Rev. Gary Wollersheim, bishop of the ELCA Northern Illinois Synod, Rockford -- "I am proud of the manner in which our church has considered these difficult issues prayerfully, openly and with respect for differing views. I am confident, with God's help, that we will make faithful decisions in August of 2005."

Bad bet, Gary.

Listen folks, I almost quit this rant a few bishops into it. I'm going to have to go and pray and calm down and ask to be forgiven again. But, I tell you, these guys are not only living proof that no charism comes with having Episcos laying hands on you, on a practical level, they are going to have to pay for their spinelessness. They had a chance to save the church and they took a pass. They know it themselves, they care more for prestige, power and pension then they do about the truth.

Come to think of it, Pilate would be the going typology in the above story.

Theological Newspeak

What shall we say (much less do) about the lovely double speak that comes our of the mouths of bishops and other luminaries high in the ecclesial heavenlies? Garrison Keillor, no mean wordsmith himself, the writer of weekly monologues from Lake Wobegon, the daily Poets Almanac as well as many books, had this to say about the effect of the language in the ELCA Task Force Report and Recommendations:

“Pastor Ingqvist was so glad about the snow. He was thinking he might have to do a sermon on the Lutheran church, its announcement of its commission on its position on same-sex relationships and the ordination of same-sex people. But then he thought, “No, I don’t really need to do that. People are thinking about snow.” Nobody had really asked him about this commission report, which was a masterpiece of muddling through - just a masterpiece. It was a beautiful piece of writing. It’s a case where you establish a commission to take up a question that militants on either side are waving their bright shining swords, and they’re up in arms about. And you put a commission in there, and it takes three years to work at it, and it puts out a report which nobody can understand, which says that essentially nothing has changed, and yet, some things have changed, but we don’t approve of that, and yet if you went ahead on the basis of conscience and did what you wanted to do, don’t worry about us coming after you, because we wouldn’t do it. It’s sort of a “don’t ask, don’t tell, never mind” position.

“And it’s beautiful. It’s a Lutheran art to take a controversial subject, and to restate the question so that nobody understands it, and then to write the response so that it has to do with nothing whatsoever. And out comes the report, and nobody can really be that angry about it, because it’s made up of all of this mishmash, this beautiful mishmash, and these sentences that are like extruded marshmallow. And so all of the militants who would be tempted to go to battle over this… Peace is kept! On the basis of confusion! A Lutheran art, to achieve strength through indirection and vagueness. This is an irritating quality about Lutherans, and people have become angry at Lutherans. “Why don’t you say what you mean? Tell us what you think.” Well… no! No."

To prove that we are in an interdenomiational war of words (it is of course much mre than that) we have only to glance over at the Anglican world. Leanne Larmodin, in an editoral in the Canadian Anglican Jurnal, writes, "Why can't we simply say what we mean?,"Parsing the statements that emerge from the church is an art, not a science. Such statements are often the product of writing teams who agonize over verbs, massage texts and sometimes skillfully inject nuance into what is ultimately released to the church.
Sometimes, this effort results in exactly the opposite of what the drafters intend, obfuscating the meaning of the statement. Other times, the intention seems to be to include “something for everyone.” Then, there are the times that we seem to be saying something simply because it is expected."

We learned on the above editorial from Chris Johnson's Midwest Conservative Journal. In the piece "The Meaning of Is"

One blogger on T19 said, Shall we address the theological newspeak campaign to crush dissent? To quote Orwell:

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

Where does this lead for the average pew-sitter? Coverted to the Confusionist position.

Sola Scriptura, folks. Scripture speaks with clarity. Flee any religious person who does not believe this. They are already brainwashed and you will be part of their Light of the Living Dead if they get too close ...

Silly Shellfish alert!

[sirens wailing in the background--whooo-whoooo-whoooo] Stand back, stand back.

Shrimp here: We had a silly shellfish sighting over at Anglican Journal in the Letters to the Editor dept., but they took care of it themselves. Carry on.


"Sad that interpretation of Bible divides the church" [sad, but oh, so true]

Dear editor,
Re: Loss of focus (April letters). This letter affirms the authority of the Word of God as the basis of our faith – that the Bible is the enduring Word of God. This view has been stated repeatedly in letters opposing the blessing of same-sex unions. With few exceptions, every major university-based seminary and department of religious studies in Europe and North America has, for more than a century, been teaching a more nuanced view of the authority of the Bible.
This view argues that the documents which make up the Bible are human constructions, deeply influenced by the cultural contexts in which they were written. Many of these documents are of continuing value only to scholars and students of religious history, and the parts which have enduring spiritual worth will often be distorted if read literally.
The true value of biblical texts resides in their proven ability to occasion, in every generation, the living Word of God in the hearts and minds of readers. This living Word is a gift of the Spirit. It is always astonishing; it reveals things previously unseen, things not known before. One cannot quote the living Word of God literally; it is always a mysterious event, which, in coming quietly, requires careful interpretation and faithful application within the community of faith. This means that no text can be quoted to prove anything.
The Bible is not a sledgehammer to be used by true believers to demolish their adversaries. It is a beautiful gift from our spiritual forefathers and foremothers, to be used gently and thoughtfully. It is sad that interpretation of the Bible divides the church but, since this situation has been true ever since the first words were penned, it is not likely to change any time soon.
Robert Wild
Salt Spring Island, B.C.



Universal moral law
Dear editor,
As letter writers Colin Proud-man and Sheila Welbergen (May letters) should both know, the apostles themselves ruled that Old Testament dietary and dress laws are not binding on Christians (Acts 15).
Some Biblical precepts are indeed responses to cultural conditions. For instance, in a society where slavery was universal and backed up by law, St. Paul rightly assumed it would continue and framed his advice accordingly. In ancient Judea, where the Jews had no hope of driving out their Roman oppressors, our Lord wisely told them to practise non-resistance. Obviously, these precepts do not imply that slavery or colonial oppression are good.
St. Paul’s condemnation of homosexual activity in Romans 1, 26-27 and I Corinthians 6, 9 is quite another matter. There, he clearly meant to state a universal moral law.
The stance that traditional Anglicans take on this issue rests on that historic Christian consensus and on St. Paul’s stature as the Lord’s chosen messenger, not on crude Biblical literalism. Shallow arguments do nothing to resolve the controversy; indeed by insulting the other side’s intelligence, they only fan the flames.
William Cooke
Toronto

Gagnon answers (shreds) revisionist's argument

The shoot out at the SBS coral is going guns ablazing today. Here is a little of what someone is going to want to save for posterity:

May 24th, 2005, 11:33pm, Brian Stoffregen wrote:

"In regards to cultic prostitution, TDNT says:

While cultic prostitution may not have been widespread on Greek soil, the TDNT goes on to state:

I think that the prostitution element of the word group, porn- remained in the minds of Paul's readers, especially those in Corinth. Thus, the words, even if not directly related to prostitution, still carried the ideas of "acting like a prostitute" or "acting like those who use prostitutes." "Promiscuous," is the word I think comes closest to these ideas. As such, I don't think that the words refer to a couple who "live together" in a monogamous relationship outside of marriage. That is not acting like one does with a prostitute. There are some good reasons to be against such extra-marriage living together, but I don't think that they can be found in this group of words in scriptures."

Rpbert Gagnon replied:

"The word porneia ("sexual immorality") and its cognates certainly includes "promiscuous" behavior but it is equally certainly not limited to such if by promiscuous you mean only multiple-partner, non-committed unions. Paul does not refer to the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 as a pornos because Paul assumes that the sexual union between the believer and his mother will involve many other sex partners in a fly-by-night relationship. Adult incest is not rejected because of some kind of promiscuous bent but rather because it violates structural prerequisites for a valid sexual union, here having sex with someone who is already too much of a familial same. A similar problem exists with homosexual practice, on the level of sex or gender--arousal for what one already is and has as a member of a given sex.

Incidentally, Philo includes bestiality under the rubric of porneia, as indeed would all Jews of the first century, including Paul. Do you think that they would have had in mind only the non-committed, promiscuous dimension of bestial relationships? Or would there have been some other deeper structural prerequisites denied?

I note that you didn't deal with any of my arguments in my online critique of Jack Rogers (a former moderator of the PCUSA) who argued, similarly to you, that Paul in Romans 1 probably had in view cultic prostitution and promiscuous sexuality. Here are some of the reasons why such a supposition is wrong.

1. The historical anachronism regarding temple prostitution in Corinth. Any critical New Testament scholar knows that Strabo’s comments about temple prostitution at Corinth (Geography 8.6.20c) (1) applied only to Greek Corinth in existence several centuries before the time of Paul, not the Roman Corinth of Paul’s day; and (2) mentioned only female (heterosexual) prostitutes, not male (homosexual) prostitutes. Scholars agree that there was no massive business of female cult prostitutes—to say nothing of male homosexual cult prostitutes—operating out of the temple of Aphrodite in Paul’s day; and that there may not have been such a business even in earlier times (i.e., Strabo was confused).

2. The plain-sense meaning of Romans 1:24-27. There is nothing in the language of Romans 1:24-27 that keys into the issue of prostitution or indeed the issue of exploitation generally. What Paul expressed as the problem was not the particularly exploitative way in which some homoerotic relationships were conducted in the ancient world but rather same-sex intercourse per se: females exchanging sexual intercourse with males for sexual intercourse with females, and males likewise having sex with males.


3. The mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26. The fact that Paul mentions lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26—which in the ancient world did not take the form of temple prostitution—proves that Paul did not have in view only forms of same-sex intercourse associated with idol worship or commercial transactions.

4. Mutual gratification and mutual condemnation in Romans 1:24-27. If Paul were condemning only exploitative forms of male-male intercourse, he would hardly have indicted in Romans 1:24-27 both partners in the sexual relationship. Yet he does condemn both partners—“males engaging in indecency with males, receiving back in themselves the recompense which was required of their straying.” This is consistent with the fact that he regards the activity as mutual and consenting: dishonoring “their bodies among themselves” and being “inflamed with their yearning for one another.” Far from painting a picture where one party is being degraded and exploited by the other, Paul portrays both partners as seeking to gratify their urges with one another and together reaping the divine recompense for their mutually degrading conduct.

5. The Genesis connection. That Paul had the other-sex prerequisite in Genesis in view is obvious from the clear intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:26-27 found in Romans 1:23-27—eight terms of agreement between the two sets of texts, in nearly the same order. It is no accident, too, that the other major Pauline text dealing with same-sex intercourse, 1 Corinthians 6:9, is cited in close proximity to Gen 2:24 (1 Cor 6:16). And it is also no accident that these are the two key creation texts lifted up by Jesus in Mark 10:6-8 as prescriptive norms for defining all human sexual behavior: “male and female he made them” (Gen 1:27) and “For this reason a man will . . . be joined to his woman (wife) and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). The story in Genesis 2:18-24 clearly images marriage as the sexually intimate “re-merger” of the constituent parts, man and woman, split from an originally undifferentiated sexual whole. There is no realistic possibility that Jesus, in citing Gen 1:27 and 2:24 as prescriptive norms, missed this other-sex prerequisite—“male and female,” “man and woman”—so clearly embedded in these verses and their surrounding narrative and so staunchly embraced by Jews everywhere in Jesus’ day. (Many other arguments could also be made for adducing Jesus anti-homosex stance; see ch. 3 [pp. 185-228] of The Bible and Homosexual Practice or pp. 68-74 of Homosexuality and the Bible). And the fact that Paul had the Genesis creation accounts in view when he indicted homosexual practice proves that he recognized their implication for abrogating all forms of same-sex intercourse (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 289-93).

6. The parallel between idolatry as an act against creation and same-sex intercourse as an act against nature (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 266-69). Paul emphasizes in Romans 1:18-32 that human beings are “without excuse”—even unbelievers who do not know Scripture—because God’s will is evident to them in creation/nature. Exhibit A (on the vertical level) is idolatry and exhibit B (on the horizontal level) is same-sex intercourse. Both alike represent attempts at suppressing the truth about God in creation or nature, transparent to human minds and even visible to human sight. Both acts are spoken of as “exchanges” of clear natural revelation for gratification of distorted desires (1:23, 25 and 1:26 respectively). Both acts are depicted as absurd—foolish or self-dishonoring—denials of natural revelation. The parallel—and not merely consequential—relationship between idolatry and same-sex intercourse is confirmed in Testament of Naphtali 3:3-4, where both idolatry and same-sex intercourse are viewed as exchanging the order of nature. In short, the parallel between idolatry and same-sex intercourse in Rom 1:18-27 is evident: Those who had suppressed the truth about God visible in creation were more apt to suppress the truth about their sexual bodies visible in nature.

7. The other vices in Romans 1:29-31 not dependent on idolatry. Yes, Paul sees idolatry as leading to an increase in same-sex intercourse as well as to an increase in the other vices cited in Rom 1:29-31. But to say that Paul was limiting the indictment in Rom 1:24-27 only to homosexual cult prostitution is like saying that the continuation of the vice list in Rom 1:29-31 had only idolatrous contexts in view. Obviously, persons who reject the clear revelation of a transcendent God in creation are going to be more likely to engage in forms of sexual behavior that suppress the truth about human sexual complementarity accessible in nature. Equally obvious, however, is the fact that Paul recognized that it was not necessary to worship idols to commit any of the immoral behaviors cited in Rom 1:24-31.

8. Sexual uncleanness in Romans 6:19. Later in Romans 6:19 Paul warns believers not to return to the kind of “sexual uncleanness”—akatharsia, the same Greek term employed in 1:24 of same-sex intercourse and other sexual offenses—that characterized their lives as unbelievers. He certainly was no more restricting the use of the term to sex in the context of temple prostitutes than he was restricting any of the other instances of “lawlessness” to activity conducted in the context of idolatrous worship.

9. The distinction between idolatry and male-male intercourse in 1 Corinthians 6:9. To say that Paul was limiting the indictment of male-male intercourse in 1 Cor 6:9 to homosexual cult prostitution is like saying that Paul was only opposed to incest (the case under discussion in chs. 5-6) in idolatrous and commercial contexts. In fact, “idolaters” are listed as a separate category of offenders, distinct from those who commit incest, prostitution, fornication, adultery, and male-male intercourse. The case of the incestuous man in ch. 5 involves a self-professed Christian with no linkage to idol worshipping or to prostitution. And the discussion of prostitution in 6:12-20 certainly is not tied only to temple prostitution. The reasons for the proscription of incest and same-sex intercourse are similar: sex with someone who is too much of a same, whether a familial same (incest: sex with the “flesh of one’s flesh,” Lev 18:6) or a sexual same (homosexual behavior: males who have sex with males).

10. The expression “contrary to nature” as applied to same-sex intercourse. In all the critiques of same-sex intercourse as “contrary to nature” that can be found in the ancient world, not a single one ever refers to the idolatrous or commercial dimension of same-sex intercourse. For example, the physician Soranus described the desire on the part of “soft men” to be penetrated (cf. 1 Cor 6:9) as “not from nature,” insofar as it “subjugated to obscene uses parts not so intended” and disregarded “the places of our body which divine providence destined for definite functions”(Chronic Diseases 4.9.131). Moreover, numerous cases of same-sex erotic relationships involving neither prostitution nor cultic activity can be documented for the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods.

11. Early Jewish critiques of same-sex intercourse. When one reads the critique in early Judaism of homoerotic practice—especially in Philo and Josephus—one notices rather quickly that the remarks focus on the compromise of sexual identity, not issues such as exchange of money or idolatrous connections. The same holds for rabbinic literature. See The Bible and Homosexual Practice, ch. 2.

12. The link between “men who lie with males” in 1 Cor 6:9 and the absolute prohibitions in Leviticus. The term arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9, a distinctly Jewish and Christian term—literally, “men who lie with males”—is derived from the absolute prohibitions of male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (Septuagint: koite = “lying [with],” arsen = “a male”). That these prohibitions have to do, first and foremost, with sexual intercourse and not with idolatry is evident from their sandwiching in the midst of the sex laws in Lev 20:10-21, separate and distinct from the regulation against sacrificing to Molech in 20:2-5. They are no more tied to idolatry or prostitution than are the laws against adultery, incest, and bestiality that surround them. Neither Second Temple Judaism nor rabbinic Judaism (nor Patristic Christianity) restricted the relevance of the Levitical prohibitions to male-male intercourse conducted in the context of idol worship or prostitution.

13. The main objection to the homosexual cult prostitutes in the Old Testament. The Old Testament—particularly Deuteronomy and the “Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua through 2 Kings)—does condemn “homosexual cult prostitutes” (the so-called qedeshim, “consecrated ones”). But even here, parallel figures in the ancient Near East—the assinnu, kurgarru, and kulu’u—were held in low regard not so much for their prostitution as for their compromise of masculine gender in allowing themselves to be penetrated as though women (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 48-49). Even Phyllis Bird, a prohomosex Old Testament scholar who has done as much work as anyone on the qedeshim, acknowledges that the writers of Scripture emphasized not the cultic prostitution of these figures but rather their “repugnant associations with male homosexual activity.” On the qedeshim, see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 100-110.

14. The meaning of “soft men” in its historical context. The term malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9—literally, “soft men”—was often used in the Greco-Roman world as a description of adult males who feminized their appearances in the hopes of attracting a male partner. Jewish and even some pagan moralists condemned them, not for their role in temple prostitution—most were not temple prostitutes—but for their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them in nature. See further The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12; and Homosexuality and the Bible, 82-83 with online notes 96-98.

15. A Corinthian critique of male-male love. The pseudo-Lucianic text Affairs of the Heart records a debate between Charicles, a Corinthian, who defends the superiority of male love for women, and Callicratidas, who defends the superiority of male love for males. Interestingly, the Corinthian never focuses on the association of male-male love with temple prostitution. Instead, he notes that men who engage in sex with other males “transgress the laws of nature” by looking “with the eyes at the male as (though) at a female,” “one nature [coming] together in one bed.” “Seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (cited in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 165-66 n. 10). What does this critique have to do with temple prostitution? Absolutely nothing. Yet Rogers would have us believe that Paul’s view of same-sex intercourse, and that of Scripture generally—which every historical piece of evidence indicates was more absolutely, consistently, and strongly opposed to same-sex intercourse than anything found in the Greco-Roman world—was actually more accepting of homosexual behavior than the cultural milieu out of which emerged.

How, after these numerous considerations, is it possible to argue that Paul was in any way limiting his indictment to homosexual cult prostitution or even to promiscuity generally?"

There's more

Canadian Front

Lutheran vote on 'local option' will be difficult decision
PETER MIKELIC

We Lutherans are now in the home stretch, just weeks before our national convention in Winnipeg, July 21-24, 2005. The 400 or so delegates will vote on the recommendation of National Church Council (NCC) for the approval of same-sex blessings with a local congregational option, as outlined in the April 2005 issue of the Anglican Journal.

While many Lutherans, like Anglicans I suspect, are preconditioned to be accommodating, not wanting to cause offence, this will be a difficult decision for our church, especially for those whose minds are already made up. The complete discounting of others and their views is the biggest obstacle in this entire subject. Listening is a skill not cherished enough. The NCC recommendation does not preclude a decision by the convention; it only indicates where NCC members wish to lead this church. The delegates are free to decide whether to follow or not.

The proposal has not been without severe criticism and opposition. Some of our pastors have already resigned from the clergy roster, while a number of congregations have put their synodical bishops on notice of their intention to withdraw from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC) if the blessings issue is ratified.

The fact is that the “local option” is intended to be a compromise which would allow folks on both sides of the issue to live and function together until a greater consensus can be achieved. Many ELCIC pastors and laity have prayerfully reflected on this question in light of the biblical and confessional witness, but have arrived at very different conclusions as to what constitutes a faithful response.

“There are congregations and pastors,” says Eastern Synod Bishop Michael Pryse, “for whom this is a pressing pastoral question that will significantly impact the breadth and scope of their ministry [and waiting] will only lead to continued controversy and, no doubt, acts of ecclesiastical disobedience that will further undermine our continued fellowship.”

Reginald Bibby, Canada’s foremost expert on religious trends, says that most denominations have dissipated much energy and effort on an issue which will not be significant in the long term. Eventually, we may well do just the thing which has caused so much grief, as we did with women’s ordination over a quarter of a century ago.

A few months ago, ELCIC National Bishop Ray Schultz was in Ottawa talking to members of Parliament and policy-makers about same-gendered unions and marriage. He was left with the sense that our church is reflecting the politics of Canada in. I subsequently recalled what my academic mentor used to say: Whenever the church lags behind society in terms of justice and human rights, the church is not doing its job.

Recommending same-sex blessings involves much risk-taking for the church. Like Anglicans, we Lutherans have been taught that the institution of the church is the only one of its kind which is not in the business of self-preservation. Instead of a church of self-reflecting and self-absorbed mirrors, we need to be a church “in Mission for Others” – the theme of the convention – which means having the church windows wide open.

Rev. Dr. Peter Mikelic pastors Epiphany Lutheran church, Toronto, and writes for various church and secular publications.

Anglican Journal, June 2005

I am really sorry to have to tell you this, but ... 

It could be worse ...

What do I mean it could be worse (this time)? Well, you could have read the following in the Lutheran, but it is in its ECUSA counterpart.

Below we have a bewilderingly mixture of bad science, half truths and no-good theology:

"Beyond gender categories
Let’s focus on our experiences of God"

by Jennifer Phillips
Section: Active Voice
5/1/2005

“In Christ … there is not male and female.”
The concept is not new, and yet it has taken until the 21st century for the beginnings of a world consensus that women and girls merit equal status, education and dignity as men and boys: a watershed change in human outlook.

Another such change has just begun: the recognition that human beings are not tidily divided into male and female, but inhabit a spectrum of sexual and gender identities that result from a combination of genetic, physiological, environmental, social and spiritual factors.

As a medical center chaplain in the early ’80s, I listened to the stories of individuals whose sex and gender identities intersected with their experiences of illness or accident. Some were born with ambiguous genitalia (and some of these had physical gender assigned by surgery in childhood, others not.) Some had disease or trauma that greatly changed their genitals. Some had chromosomal differences that blurred the genetic boundary of male and female. Some experienced themselves as “transgendered” -- an identity then only beginning to find a name and description -- as having one physical gender and another inner gender.

Many were gay or lesbian. Some identified themselves as bisexual. Some cross-dressed, straight or gay. Some were pained greatly by their identities; others were at peace and astonishingly well-adjusted despite the ostracism and scorn they experienced. Many had established deep, intimate relationships despite their differences from what I had grown up thinking was the “norm.” To have the privilege of hearing about these lives and spiritual searchings close-up filled me with awe and reverence for the complexity and strength of human beings.

After eight years of hospital work with such marvelous human beings, I could never again experience the world as split into two categories, male and female. Nor could I write off these different lives as simply “damaged” or “anomalous.” They represent a hefty minority of humankind, across all cultures."

Read the rest?

“What Color Will the New Hymnal Be?

As said before, used to be The Lutheran Commentator was round-filed on delivery, then we began to agree with it and at some point it became prophetic. From last year:

"Two big issues for 2005 Assembly. Many people know that the vote on GLBT clergy is slated for the 2005 Churchwide Assembly. But few know the second big issue slated for the 2005 Assembly: a new hymnal. Much of the new hymnal is available now in preliminary volumes under the title: Renewing Worship. It can be found online (renewingworship.org) or ordered through Augsburg/Fortress Press (1/800-328-4648). Since previous hymnals have been known by their color - green, red, blue, brown, black - what color will the new hymnal be? Suggested colors for the new hymnal based on what's between the covers: Let it be Lavender . . . for gender-neutral marriage ceremonies. Renewing Worship offers multiple options. It offers wedding liturgies which use "husband and wife" and "male and female." But it also provides alternative liturgies (pp. 12-19) which are gender neutral and could used for same-sex couples. Two examples: Beloved people of God, we have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the covenant of love and fidelity B and name are to make with each other. The union of two persons in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy. &, living in the promise of God, joined to Christ in your baptism, will you give yourself to Renewing Worship 4, p. 12 in love and faithfulness? Renewing Worship 4, p. 13

Since it is likely the Assembly will adopt Renewing Worship, it will be implicitly approving gender neutral ceremonies which can be used for same-sex weddings. Let it be Grey ... for shrouding God in mystery. Renewing Worship notes a feminist complaint: "Many people find exclusively masculine language for God a serious deterrent to their worship" (RW 1, p.14). It proposes to correct this "serious deterrent" in the following way: "Because God is ultimately mystery, the language used in worship points to and evokes the God beyond knowing" (RW 1, L-5A, emphasis added). To the contrary, to seek "the God beyond knowing" is a doomed project which yields only empty abstractions or reflections of how we glorify ourselves. As Luther said: "To seek God outside of Jesus is the Devil" (WA 40,3:337; see also LW 26:28-30). What's lost is the scandal and offense to every generation: the cross (I Cor.1:22). Jesus was crucified because he "made himself the Son of Cod" (John 19:7). Yet the Father vindicated him, revealing their identities: "The mystery has been made known - by revelation - in Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:3-4). Thus God the Father is not named in analogy to human fathers, as feminists incorrectly assume, but only in relation to the Son: God is the Father of Jesus Christ. His name is: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. " In the ELCA, however, feminist claims are trump. To be sure, the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, and the baptismal formula have not been changed. But these places become small islands in a sea of "expansive" terms for God, especially nature metaphors and depersonalized images, as in the examples below: Wondrous are you, Holy One of Blessing; all you create is a sign of hope for our journey. And so as the morning stars sing your praises we join the heavenly beings and all creation as we shout in joy. Renewing Worship 6, p.62

You, Holy God, Holy One, Holy Three - our Life, our Mercy, our Might, our Table, our Food, our Server, our Rainbow, our Ark, our Dove, our Sovereign, our Water, our Wine, our Light, our Treasure, our Tree, our way, our Truth, our Life -- You, Holy God, Holy One, Holy Three! Renewing Worship 6, p.65 Let it be Purple ... for the Episcopalization of Worship. Renewing Worship is itself evidence of how the ELCA is becoming like The Episcopal Church. In addition to the multiple options mentioned above, the ELCA now offers options on such matters as the bondage of the will. Lutherans have traditionally stood with Luther, confessing: "I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him.. . . (Small Catechism, Apostles Creed, Third Article). Renewing Worship, however, offers pastors the option of asking those being baptized or their parents: "Do you turn to Christ as your Lord and Savior?" (emphasis added). The claim that sinners can "turn to Christ" of their own free will is usually associated with Baptists and most conservative evangelicals. Renewing Worship also offers options that encourage placing confidence in good works. For example, pastors may close a worship service with the following admonition: "Go in Peace. Remember the poor" (RW Liturgies, p.23).

Why just "the poor"? The "option for the poor" is a central theme of liberation theology. In contrast, a Lutheran way to close a worship service might be: "Go in peace. Beware of spiritual pride. " Uniformity on communion as the church's Eucharistic offering to God. Both churches offer a rainbow of options on many issues, but insist on uniformity on communion as a two-way Eucharistic offering. Under Renewing Worship ELCA congregations will follow the Episcopal/Catholic rule which requires the celebrant (under CCM gradually all pastors become sacramental priests), to offer the bread and wine with the words of institution in a Eucharistic prayer to God. In these traditions communion is two-way event. God gives, but the bishop and his priests have special grace, given in their ordinations, to make a right Eucharistic offering to God and to make Jesus present in the sacrament. Renewing Worship follows this Episcopal/Catholic practice (RW Liturgies, pp. 9, 35, RW 6, Holy Communion and Related Rites, Introduction xi), but never explains the Episcopal/Catholic theology supporting it. You know the routine: You don't have to believe it; you just have to do it. The next generation will do it and believe it. What is being phased out of the ELCA is Luther's teaching that the Lord's Supper is a one-way event in which Christ, the sole Lord of the Supper, is present through his Word alone. In his Supper he gives his last will and testament to his heirs. Let it be Rainbow. With all the options offered in the new hymnal - except for the priestly offering of the bread and wine to God in the Eucharistic prayer - the new hymnal should be rainbow.

Read more?