Goodsoil drafts memorials for 2008 synod assemblies
Dear Supporter of Full Inclusion:
The church is in the midst of a time of thoughtful and prayerful discernment about issues relating to human sexuality. A crucial part of the process of discernment entails the synods in assembly to communicate their views about these issues. The Goodsoil Legislative Team has drafted four memorials addressing the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. These memorials concern rostered ministry, blessing services, and violence and discrimination perpetrated on account of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
We encourage those interested in receiving copies of these memorials to contact the Team at legislation@goodsoil.org. We will then send you copies, along with a few notes and instructions.
Please note that in March 2009, the Church Council will make its final decisions about what sexuality recommendations it will present to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis. This March 2009 date comes well before the beginning of the 2009 synod assembly season. Therefore, it is very important that synods wishing to communicate their views do so during the 2008 synod assembly season, rather than wait for 2009. See www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/timeline/ for the full timeline of key points in the process.
We ask that you consider these memorials to determine if one or more may be appropriate for introduction in your own synod. If so, we urge you to submit them for consideration at your 2008 synod assembly.
Grace and peace,
The Goodsoil Legislative Team
Friday, April 25, 2008
Frisk them bishops!
Gay Bishop Plans His Civil Union Rite
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
April 25, 2008
Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal prelate whose consecration led conservatives to split from the church, said in an interview on Thursday that he and his partner of 20 years were planning a civil union ceremony to be held in his home church in the diocese of New Hampshire in June.
Bishop Robinson said that by scheduling the ceremony for June, he did not intend to further inflame conservatives just before the Anglican Communion gathers in August in Cambridge, England, for the Lambeth Conference, which happens only once every 10 years.He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003.
NY Times story here.
Wonder which one of the conservative bishops Robinson figures to be the assassin? Or is it that gun-toting British population he fears. Or is it as anyone in their right mind fear, that he is being provocative?
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
April 25, 2008
Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal prelate whose consecration led conservatives to split from the church, said in an interview on Thursday that he and his partner of 20 years were planning a civil union ceremony to be held in his home church in the diocese of New Hampshire in June.
Bishop Robinson said that by scheduling the ceremony for June, he did not intend to further inflame conservatives just before the Anglican Communion gathers in August in Cambridge, England, for the Lambeth Conference, which happens only once every 10 years.He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003.
NY Times story here.
Wonder which one of the conservative bishops Robinson figures to be the assassin? Or is it that gun-toting British population he fears. Or is it as anyone in their right mind fear, that he is being provocative?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Peacemaker of the Year Award Goes to....
Katharine Schori! Yes, that's right! Hey, kids! Cap'n Bill here! Ready for some more cartoons? Today we turn to the funnies in the Palm Beach Daily News. Here look at the pictures. See the woman dressed like a pope? She's got a lot of very, very funny things to say. Read along with me kids!
"Schori defines herself as a peacemaker." (That's not what the inhibited bishops or congregations having to raise defense funds to pay lawyers are saying) Here's another real funny joke kids:
"The reality is there is a small segment of the Episcopal Church that is very upset about issues of sexuality," Jefferts Schori said. "But it's small. It's very noisy." (Hardey-har-har!)
"My sense is the vast majority in the middle of the spectrum in the Episcopal Church may or may not agree with the decisions of the general convention about issues of human sexuality, but they see other things are far more important to their identity as Episcopalians, to their mission in ministry as Episcopalians in the world. And they are going to live with it and keep moving."
That's right. Keep moving, nothing to see here! Ha hah!
For most members of the church, there are far more pressing issues, Jefferts Schori said.
OK! This is enough funny stuff! Can't take it. Please, stop! Seriously, if you want to know what is really going on and just how much a peacemaker Schori is go here.
"Schori defines herself as a peacemaker." (That's not what the inhibited bishops or congregations having to raise defense funds to pay lawyers are saying) Here's another real funny joke kids:
"The reality is there is a small segment of the Episcopal Church that is very upset about issues of sexuality," Jefferts Schori said. "But it's small. It's very noisy." (Hardey-har-har!)
"My sense is the vast majority in the middle of the spectrum in the Episcopal Church may or may not agree with the decisions of the general convention about issues of human sexuality, but they see other things are far more important to their identity as Episcopalians, to their mission in ministry as Episcopalians in the world. And they are going to live with it and keep moving."
That's right. Keep moving, nothing to see here! Ha hah!
For most members of the church, there are far more pressing issues, Jefferts Schori said.
OK! This is enough funny stuff! Can't take it. Please, stop! Seriously, if you want to know what is really going on and just how much a peacemaker Schori is go here.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Benne: A Sexual Ethic for Teletubbies
Shrimp here. Bob Benne's critique of the ELCA's draft sexuality statement was posted Monday at First Things: On the Square. When Benne writes, Shrimp reads. So should you and a whole lot more ELCA leaders. Shrimp out.
In mid-March, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Task Force on Sexuality released a draft of what is supposed to become a Social Statement—a basis for internal church policy and a platform for advocacy in society. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort have been put into an unending series of studies that have wrestled with the vexing problems of assessing the morality of homosexual relations, and from that assessment making further judgments about the blessing of gay unions and the rostering of homosexual clergy who are in committed partnerships. The basic theological/ethical challenge to assess homosexual conduct has never been addressed adequately in any preceding document. This draft Social Statement is no different in spite of expectations: It simply says that the church is divided on that issue. The kind of theological/ethical argument in this current document, however, is precisely the kind that will set the stage for a revision of Lutheran teaching on sexual ethics in the future. Such a revision would mean that the ELCA is no longer a church following in the footsteps of the Lutheran Reformation.
One of the noticeably odd features of the new draft is its absence of “males and females,” “women and men,” “husbands and wives,” “boys and girls,” and “mothers and fathers.” Instead, one reads of “couples,” “partners,” “engendered persons,” “parents,” and “children.” The subjects of the statement seem to have no distinct features, a bit like the amorphous Teletubbies of children’s television. This reluctance to affirm definite forms extends to the statement’s posture toward marriage and the family, commandments and law, guiding principles, and especially toward rules. In fact, this aversion to specific forms seems to be the fatal flaw of the document, leading to a vagueness and fluidity that undermines its capacity for genuine guidance in the church.
This formlessness appears immediately in the statement’s theological and ethical foundations. The law, though affirmed, remains a ghostly, abstract, and empty category. No commandments are mentioned. No covenantal structures—such as God’s gift of marriage to Adam and Eve—are affirmed. Indeed, there is no explication of male and female together being created in the image of God. Rather, the statement tries to derive its sexual ethic from the incarnation of Jesus and the justification his work has wrought. One of most astounding statements in the document asserts that ‘a Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that guide it’ (emphasis mine).
Certainly Jesus makes relevant statements about sexual ethics, but these have little to do with incarnation or justification. He reaffirms the creation account of woman and man being created in the image of God; he upholds marriage and offers very strict conditions for divorce. He condemns all sorts of sexual sins—adultery, fornication, lust, etc. But all these are built on the law of God he inherited from Jewish tradition, which gives the basic form and content to the sexual ethics he teaches and sometimes sharpens.
This effort to derive sexual ethics from incarnation and justification is a very un-Lutheran way of making an ethical argument. Luther argued that marriage is located in the order of creation and should be guided by natural law, best summarized in the Ten Commandments. Given that, he thought marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the state for the common good of society. He criticized precisely the Roman Catholic tradition that kept marriage completely under ecclesial authority (governed exclusively by canon law) and that located it in the order of redemption (marriage as a sacrament imparts saving grace). Rather, Luther proposed that marriage is first of all a social estate open to all, non-Christian and Christians alike. (See John Witte’s elaboration of the Lutheran teaching on marriage in his From Sacrament to Contract.)
While it is true that God’s justifying work in Christ enables us to take up our calling in marriage, which can then be made into a Holy Estate in the church’s blessing, the form and content of marriage are given by the structure and guidance of the law. The form is very specific—a life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman oriented toward loving communion and procreation. It provides the “place of responsibility” where our vocation is lived out. No formlessness there.
The statement clearly de-centers marriage as the touchstone around which Christian sexual ethics are elaborated. It takes up marriage as a topic only near the end of the document. It is even equivocal about the God-ordained status of marriage. It affirms that “Marriage is a structure of mutual promises between a man and woman blessed by God,” yet later suggests that “marriage” (quotation marks in the original document) is accorded legitimacy merely by its “historic origin.” It tepidly allows that this church “does not wish to alter this understanding” but then hurries on to dilute its affirmation by observing that some states already use “marriage” to refer to same-gender unions.
Likewise, the statement remains resolutely formless when it takes up family life. It grudgingly agrees that the nuclear family fosters the development of trust in children and youth, but immediately notes that it has not always done so effectively. Later it opts for a functional definition of the family and suggests that many arrangements can get the tasks done, not just the “conventional one.” Its pastoral compassion for many in “broken” families overcomes the possibility of making a normative statement about the form of the family.
But the biblical and Christian moral traditions are not so reluctant. A child always has a mother and father: Jesus has Joseph and Mary, Cain and Abel have Adam and Eve. Though there may be extended and even “tribal” families, the Bible always depicts a child having a mother and a father. Great care is taken to affirm and nurture this triad. A Commandment is devoted to it. It is biblically and traditionally normative, and no amount of appropriate pastoral accommodation to the fracturing or confusion of the modern family will change that.
The writers of the statement also make a strange move when they decide to use “trust” as the central ethical principle for human relations in marriage and family life, while avoiding the use of “love” as a principle. Indeed, there is little reflection on the meaning and forms of love, yet another example of the aversion to specific forms.
Trust and love are two different things. The former is a more passive quality in which one person allows his or her being to be dependent on the trustworthiness of another. Love is a more active principle that moves outward toward the other. There are distinct forms of love—libido, eros, philia, agape—that are expressed in different kinds of relationships. Some forms of love are inappropriate in some kinds of relationship. Libidinous love ought not be expressed toward children or those outside the marital bond. Chastity is the Christian virtue that leads to self-control in these matters. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, makes unconditional commitments and heals and restores broken relationships. Sexual love—a lively mixture of libidinous and erotic love—is to be expressed fully only in marriage and is appropriate to form. The Bible and the Christian tradition clearly prohibit sexual love to be expressed between siblings, parent and children (incest), between different kinds of species (bestiality), and between those of the same sex (homosexuality.)
These sorts of distinctions are deeply embedded in the biblical material as well as in the Christian moral tradition held by nearly all Christians throughout the ages. Sadly, the Social Statement does not draw upon that tradition to make such distinctions. There is, after all, more in Christian memory than the New Testament, Luther, and contemporary experience, which are the sources employed by the statement. Its amnesia contributes to its formlessness.
The statement promotes an ethic of responsibility—a good thing for mature people—but distances itself from any reliance on rules, another example of aversion to form, in this case formalism in ethics. For example, it cannot bring itself to affirm a rule against premarital sex or cohabitation, let along homosexual conduct. Rather, it pleads for responsibility in maintaining a level of sexual intimacy commensurate with the degree of commitment. While not favoring or giving approval to cohabitation, the statement does not proscribe it either. It inveighs against promiscuity but cannot proscribe premarital sex. Its ethic of responsibility might well allow both practices in certain circumstances. And what young person cannot find sufficient reason in his or her circumstances to justify both premarital sex and cohabitation? Clear rules might be important here, just as the rule against adultery makes things very clear for married couples. A solid ethic of responsibility would employ rules, some absolute in character.
The statement’s aversion to form gives it something of a Marcionite whiff. That aversion represents a distinct distancing from our Old Testament heritage. Little development of the creation story and the instituting by God of marriage. Little mention of the Commandments as guidance for Christian life. Little mention of the rather strict rules that undergirded life together in early Christian communities. No mention of the Old Testament—and New Testament—proscription of homosexual conduct. Indeed, little use of the law at all, in spite of its claim to honor it. It seems that, whenever Christians want to release sexuality from its created forms and from the commandments that guide it, they move away from the faith of Israel and fasten to New Testament emphases on incarnation and justification. Without the law, such emphases quickly lead to the “gospel of inclusion,” one without repentance or amendment of life. And, in the case of this statement, weak and indeterminate guidance for moral life.
It is not as if the old teachings are totally absent. They are not. But they are constantly qualified by an ethic of responsibility that shies away from forms of all kinds. I can’t say it better than the statement does itself: “A Lutheran sexual ethic deeply attuned to justification and incarnation extends well beyond the application of static principles, even biblical ones, to varying situations. This ethic is more about directing us to find a responsible place for sexuality in the service of God’s ongoing activity in the world than about containing its ambiguous power.”
Certainly the ELCA has not made a conscious decision to adopt the Marcionite heresy. But it, like other mainstream Protestant churches, has been pushed in that direction by strong feminist and gay-liberation movements within its membership. Those movements suspect that heterosexual males have been in charge of the historic faith from Abraham on down to the present time—and they want to call a halt to that. Shouldn’t women and gays and lesbians refuse to allow those heterosexual males define what to them are oppressive forms and rules? If we remove the sharp edges from the forms and dispense with the rules, won’t our general ethic of responsibility be applicable to all sorts of relationships? The statement seems to be saying “yes” to both those questions. The trouble is, saying “yes” also abandons the specific moral teachings of the Bible and Christian tradition.
Though I expected the statement to make an attempt at assessing homosexual conduct, it didn’t. But if the foregoing argument is at all compelling, the writers of the statement might be in the process of embracing a formless creation, which is a necessary prelude for the positive assessment of homosexual relations.
This unsettling suspicion overshadows the many good features of the statement. Its analysis of our current sexualized society and its many victims is one with which I heartily agree. (It seems to me, however, that the statement forgets about the millions of human beings eliminated by abortion, many of whom were the victims of irresponsible sexual behavior.) Its call for pastoral compassion for all is persuasive. Its spirit of civility and moderation is admirable. At times it speaks eloquently about marriage, though too little and too late. It makes an effort to take up the thorny questions of premarital sex and cohabitation, though it does so with less guidance than I think necessary. And, considering the difficulty of reaching consensus on these contentious issues, the statement proposes a serious line of argument, a subversive one with which I sharply disagree.
Robert Benne is director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College and the author of several books, including Reasonable Ethics: A Christian Approach to Social, Economic, and Political Concerns.
References
Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality
A Sexual Ethic for Teletubbies, or Lutherans Embrace a Formless World
By Robert BenneIn mid-March, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Task Force on Sexuality released a draft of what is supposed to become a Social Statement—a basis for internal church policy and a platform for advocacy in society. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort have been put into an unending series of studies that have wrestled with the vexing problems of assessing the morality of homosexual relations, and from that assessment making further judgments about the blessing of gay unions and the rostering of homosexual clergy who are in committed partnerships. The basic theological/ethical challenge to assess homosexual conduct has never been addressed adequately in any preceding document. This draft Social Statement is no different in spite of expectations: It simply says that the church is divided on that issue. The kind of theological/ethical argument in this current document, however, is precisely the kind that will set the stage for a revision of Lutheran teaching on sexual ethics in the future. Such a revision would mean that the ELCA is no longer a church following in the footsteps of the Lutheran Reformation.
One of the noticeably odd features of the new draft is its absence of “males and females,” “women and men,” “husbands and wives,” “boys and girls,” and “mothers and fathers.” Instead, one reads of “couples,” “partners,” “engendered persons,” “parents,” and “children.” The subjects of the statement seem to have no distinct features, a bit like the amorphous Teletubbies of children’s television. This reluctance to affirm definite forms extends to the statement’s posture toward marriage and the family, commandments and law, guiding principles, and especially toward rules. In fact, this aversion to specific forms seems to be the fatal flaw of the document, leading to a vagueness and fluidity that undermines its capacity for genuine guidance in the church.
This formlessness appears immediately in the statement’s theological and ethical foundations. The law, though affirmed, remains a ghostly, abstract, and empty category. No commandments are mentioned. No covenantal structures—such as God’s gift of marriage to Adam and Eve—are affirmed. Indeed, there is no explication of male and female together being created in the image of God. Rather, the statement tries to derive its sexual ethic from the incarnation of Jesus and the justification his work has wrought. One of most astounding statements in the document asserts that ‘a Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that guide it’ (emphasis mine).
Certainly Jesus makes relevant statements about sexual ethics, but these have little to do with incarnation or justification. He reaffirms the creation account of woman and man being created in the image of God; he upholds marriage and offers very strict conditions for divorce. He condemns all sorts of sexual sins—adultery, fornication, lust, etc. But all these are built on the law of God he inherited from Jewish tradition, which gives the basic form and content to the sexual ethics he teaches and sometimes sharpens.
This effort to derive sexual ethics from incarnation and justification is a very un-Lutheran way of making an ethical argument. Luther argued that marriage is located in the order of creation and should be guided by natural law, best summarized in the Ten Commandments. Given that, he thought marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the state for the common good of society. He criticized precisely the Roman Catholic tradition that kept marriage completely under ecclesial authority (governed exclusively by canon law) and that located it in the order of redemption (marriage as a sacrament imparts saving grace). Rather, Luther proposed that marriage is first of all a social estate open to all, non-Christian and Christians alike. (See John Witte’s elaboration of the Lutheran teaching on marriage in his From Sacrament to Contract.)
While it is true that God’s justifying work in Christ enables us to take up our calling in marriage, which can then be made into a Holy Estate in the church’s blessing, the form and content of marriage are given by the structure and guidance of the law. The form is very specific—a life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman oriented toward loving communion and procreation. It provides the “place of responsibility” where our vocation is lived out. No formlessness there.
The statement clearly de-centers marriage as the touchstone around which Christian sexual ethics are elaborated. It takes up marriage as a topic only near the end of the document. It is even equivocal about the God-ordained status of marriage. It affirms that “Marriage is a structure of mutual promises between a man and woman blessed by God,” yet later suggests that “marriage” (quotation marks in the original document) is accorded legitimacy merely by its “historic origin.” It tepidly allows that this church “does not wish to alter this understanding” but then hurries on to dilute its affirmation by observing that some states already use “marriage” to refer to same-gender unions.
Likewise, the statement remains resolutely formless when it takes up family life. It grudgingly agrees that the nuclear family fosters the development of trust in children and youth, but immediately notes that it has not always done so effectively. Later it opts for a functional definition of the family and suggests that many arrangements can get the tasks done, not just the “conventional one.” Its pastoral compassion for many in “broken” families overcomes the possibility of making a normative statement about the form of the family.
But the biblical and Christian moral traditions are not so reluctant. A child always has a mother and father: Jesus has Joseph and Mary, Cain and Abel have Adam and Eve. Though there may be extended and even “tribal” families, the Bible always depicts a child having a mother and a father. Great care is taken to affirm and nurture this triad. A Commandment is devoted to it. It is biblically and traditionally normative, and no amount of appropriate pastoral accommodation to the fracturing or confusion of the modern family will change that.
The writers of the statement also make a strange move when they decide to use “trust” as the central ethical principle for human relations in marriage and family life, while avoiding the use of “love” as a principle. Indeed, there is little reflection on the meaning and forms of love, yet another example of the aversion to specific forms.
Trust and love are two different things. The former is a more passive quality in which one person allows his or her being to be dependent on the trustworthiness of another. Love is a more active principle that moves outward toward the other. There are distinct forms of love—libido, eros, philia, agape—that are expressed in different kinds of relationships. Some forms of love are inappropriate in some kinds of relationship. Libidinous love ought not be expressed toward children or those outside the marital bond. Chastity is the Christian virtue that leads to self-control in these matters. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, makes unconditional commitments and heals and restores broken relationships. Sexual love—a lively mixture of libidinous and erotic love—is to be expressed fully only in marriage and is appropriate to form. The Bible and the Christian tradition clearly prohibit sexual love to be expressed between siblings, parent and children (incest), between different kinds of species (bestiality), and between those of the same sex (homosexuality.)
These sorts of distinctions are deeply embedded in the biblical material as well as in the Christian moral tradition held by nearly all Christians throughout the ages. Sadly, the Social Statement does not draw upon that tradition to make such distinctions. There is, after all, more in Christian memory than the New Testament, Luther, and contemporary experience, which are the sources employed by the statement. Its amnesia contributes to its formlessness.
The statement promotes an ethic of responsibility—a good thing for mature people—but distances itself from any reliance on rules, another example of aversion to form, in this case formalism in ethics. For example, it cannot bring itself to affirm a rule against premarital sex or cohabitation, let along homosexual conduct. Rather, it pleads for responsibility in maintaining a level of sexual intimacy commensurate with the degree of commitment. While not favoring or giving approval to cohabitation, the statement does not proscribe it either. It inveighs against promiscuity but cannot proscribe premarital sex. Its ethic of responsibility might well allow both practices in certain circumstances. And what young person cannot find sufficient reason in his or her circumstances to justify both premarital sex and cohabitation? Clear rules might be important here, just as the rule against adultery makes things very clear for married couples. A solid ethic of responsibility would employ rules, some absolute in character.
The statement’s aversion to form gives it something of a Marcionite whiff. That aversion represents a distinct distancing from our Old Testament heritage. Little development of the creation story and the instituting by God of marriage. Little mention of the Commandments as guidance for Christian life. Little mention of the rather strict rules that undergirded life together in early Christian communities. No mention of the Old Testament—and New Testament—proscription of homosexual conduct. Indeed, little use of the law at all, in spite of its claim to honor it. It seems that, whenever Christians want to release sexuality from its created forms and from the commandments that guide it, they move away from the faith of Israel and fasten to New Testament emphases on incarnation and justification. Without the law, such emphases quickly lead to the “gospel of inclusion,” one without repentance or amendment of life. And, in the case of this statement, weak and indeterminate guidance for moral life.
It is not as if the old teachings are totally absent. They are not. But they are constantly qualified by an ethic of responsibility that shies away from forms of all kinds. I can’t say it better than the statement does itself: “A Lutheran sexual ethic deeply attuned to justification and incarnation extends well beyond the application of static principles, even biblical ones, to varying situations. This ethic is more about directing us to find a responsible place for sexuality in the service of God’s ongoing activity in the world than about containing its ambiguous power.”
Certainly the ELCA has not made a conscious decision to adopt the Marcionite heresy. But it, like other mainstream Protestant churches, has been pushed in that direction by strong feminist and gay-liberation movements within its membership. Those movements suspect that heterosexual males have been in charge of the historic faith from Abraham on down to the present time—and they want to call a halt to that. Shouldn’t women and gays and lesbians refuse to allow those heterosexual males define what to them are oppressive forms and rules? If we remove the sharp edges from the forms and dispense with the rules, won’t our general ethic of responsibility be applicable to all sorts of relationships? The statement seems to be saying “yes” to both those questions. The trouble is, saying “yes” also abandons the specific moral teachings of the Bible and Christian tradition.
Though I expected the statement to make an attempt at assessing homosexual conduct, it didn’t. But if the foregoing argument is at all compelling, the writers of the statement might be in the process of embracing a formless creation, which is a necessary prelude for the positive assessment of homosexual relations.
This unsettling suspicion overshadows the many good features of the statement. Its analysis of our current sexualized society and its many victims is one with which I heartily agree. (It seems to me, however, that the statement forgets about the millions of human beings eliminated by abortion, many of whom were the victims of irresponsible sexual behavior.) Its call for pastoral compassion for all is persuasive. Its spirit of civility and moderation is admirable. At times it speaks eloquently about marriage, though too little and too late. It makes an effort to take up the thorny questions of premarital sex and cohabitation, though it does so with less guidance than I think necessary. And, considering the difficulty of reaching consensus on these contentious issues, the statement proposes a serious line of argument, a subversive one with which I sharply disagree.
Robert Benne is director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College and the author of several books, including Reasonable Ethics: A Christian Approach to Social, Economic, and Political Concerns.
References
Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Bishop MacBurney inhibited by Schori
Breaking News
Forward in Faith North America reacts to the inhibition of Bishop MacBurney
Apr 9, 2008
“It is a sad day when godly bishops are no longer free to provide pastoral care for those beyond our formal institutional boundaries.” FiF NA President
Today the Right Reverend Edward MacBurney, the bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy (Episcopal) received a Letter of Inhibition from Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA (TEC). The Inhibition forbids MacBurney from functioning as a bishop of TEC.
Last year MacBurney was invited by the Presiding Bishop & Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, to make a pastoral visit to a Southern Cone parish in San Diego, California, on his behalf. In a spirit of Anglican unity and Christian generosity, Bishop MacBurney agreed to respond to the pastoral needs of those outside TEC with whom TEC claims fellowship.
“This is an alarming move against a godly man who, without publicity, rightly helped a brother bishop provide care for his people,” said the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith NA and current TEC Bishop of Quincy (IL). This move against Bishop MacBurney is a clear warning that the leadership of TEC is endeavouring to bring the days of the biblically orthodox within TEC to a close. “Schori clearly has no intention to ‘live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything’ as she was quoted in Saturday’s interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Sandi Dolbee.
“While Schori extolled the imperative to worship together, her Inhibition is to prevent others from worshipping with Bishop MacBurney,” said Father Keith Acker who was also interviewed by Dolbee on Schori’s weekend visit to San Diego.
Internationally this is an attack upon the many world leaders of Anglican Churches (Primates) who have responded to the “burning house” of the ever increasingly post-Christian theology of TEC and its abandonment of the Bible as the Word of God in any meaningful sense.
Bishop MacBurney welcomes the opportunity to defend his actions from the scandalous neglect of Christian charity led by Katharine Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC. Bishop MacBurney will have 90 days to respond to the charges.
The Right Revd Keith L. AckermanPresident of Forward in Faith North America
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/pages/InhibitionBpMac.pdf
Forward in Faith North America reacts to the inhibition of Bishop MacBurney
Apr 9, 2008
“It is a sad day when godly bishops are no longer free to provide pastoral care for those beyond our formal institutional boundaries.” FiF NA President
Today the Right Reverend Edward MacBurney, the bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy (Episcopal) received a Letter of Inhibition from Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA (TEC). The Inhibition forbids MacBurney from functioning as a bishop of TEC.
Last year MacBurney was invited by the Presiding Bishop & Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, to make a pastoral visit to a Southern Cone parish in San Diego, California, on his behalf. In a spirit of Anglican unity and Christian generosity, Bishop MacBurney agreed to respond to the pastoral needs of those outside TEC with whom TEC claims fellowship.
“This is an alarming move against a godly man who, without publicity, rightly helped a brother bishop provide care for his people,” said the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith NA and current TEC Bishop of Quincy (IL). This move against Bishop MacBurney is a clear warning that the leadership of TEC is endeavouring to bring the days of the biblically orthodox within TEC to a close. “Schori clearly has no intention to ‘live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything’ as she was quoted in Saturday’s interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Sandi Dolbee.
“While Schori extolled the imperative to worship together, her Inhibition is to prevent others from worshipping with Bishop MacBurney,” said Father Keith Acker who was also interviewed by Dolbee on Schori’s weekend visit to San Diego.
Internationally this is an attack upon the many world leaders of Anglican Churches (Primates) who have responded to the “burning house” of the ever increasingly post-Christian theology of TEC and its abandonment of the Bible as the Word of God in any meaningful sense.
Bishop MacBurney welcomes the opportunity to defend his actions from the scandalous neglect of Christian charity led by Katharine Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC. Bishop MacBurney will have 90 days to respond to the charges.
The Right Revd Keith L. AckermanPresident of Forward in Faith North America
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/pages/InhibitionBpMac.pdf
Friday, April 04, 2008
"Our Hearts are on Fire!"
Cap'n Bill here:
Out here at sea I miss a lot of news, I'm sure, but I got my email link and I do have my sources. Read this today:
Lutherans Concerned / North America invites people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to assemble with members of Reconciling in Christ and prospective RIC congregations at San Francisco State University July 3–6 under the theme, Hearts on Fire.
We’ll worship together, using a rich variety of traditions of the worshipping community. We’ll provide a blend of the familiar and the unique drawing on our Lutheran heritage and the wealth of liturgical practice in the area. We’ll network with one another, hear stories of joy and frustration, and make decisions together about the future direction of Lutherans Concerned / North America.
Hearts on Fire is more than a conference. We take pride in nurturing our participants. Many see the biennial assembly as a family reunion. In 2008, we hope to expand that family feeling by offering some new and exciting aspects to the assembly. Some the new aspects include:
Our Assembly is one week following San Francisco Pride. You can come to town for Pride and stay for the Assembly (all at San Francisco State University).
Assembly Pre-Events offer extra education and edification before the assembly begins.
Vacation Bible School will be offered for children of Assembly attendees and local RIC congregations. This will allow children to have a meaningful Assembly experience along with parents.
Please visit this website again to see what new information we have added. We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco!
That is the info from the LCNA site. This additional info is very interesting:
This gathering will provide participants with advocacy skills that can be applied in either a Lutheran and Episcopalian context. Bishop Robinson is a featured speaker. Jan Adams, Integrity's Field Organizer, also plans to provide a workshop on Inclusion Activism for Episcopalians (probably while LCNA members are having their business meeting).
So, just in case you've been in Borneo since 2003, Bishop Robinson is that Bishop Robinson, Gene Robinson, the mother of all gay advocates....
We can be sure GoodSoil will be brought up to speed on schism producing activism. Lord help us.
Out here at sea I miss a lot of news, I'm sure, but I got my email link and I do have my sources. Read this today:
Lutherans Concerned / North America invites people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to assemble with members of Reconciling in Christ and prospective RIC congregations at San Francisco State University July 3–6 under the theme, Hearts on Fire.
We’ll worship together, using a rich variety of traditions of the worshipping community. We’ll provide a blend of the familiar and the unique drawing on our Lutheran heritage and the wealth of liturgical practice in the area. We’ll network with one another, hear stories of joy and frustration, and make decisions together about the future direction of Lutherans Concerned / North America.
Hearts on Fire is more than a conference. We take pride in nurturing our participants. Many see the biennial assembly as a family reunion. In 2008, we hope to expand that family feeling by offering some new and exciting aspects to the assembly. Some the new aspects include:
Our Assembly is one week following San Francisco Pride. You can come to town for Pride and stay for the Assembly (all at San Francisco State University).
Assembly Pre-Events offer extra education and edification before the assembly begins.
Vacation Bible School will be offered for children of Assembly attendees and local RIC congregations. This will allow children to have a meaningful Assembly experience along with parents.
Please visit this website again to see what new information we have added. We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco!
That is the info from the LCNA site. This additional info is very interesting:
This gathering will provide participants with advocacy skills that can be applied in either a Lutheran and Episcopalian context. Bishop Robinson is a featured speaker. Jan Adams, Integrity's Field Organizer, also plans to provide a workshop on Inclusion Activism for Episcopalians (probably while LCNA members are having their business meeting).
So, just in case you've been in Borneo since 2003, Bishop Robinson is that Bishop Robinson, Gene Robinson, the mother of all gay advocates....
We can be sure GoodSoil will be brought up to speed on schism producing activism. Lord help us.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
New from Fortress Press
Shrimp here, reading yesterday's (not today's) announcement of a book release from Fortress Press. Fortress' new slogan is "The Power of Scholarship" and at the bottom of its front page one discovers that it is also "Innovative - Accessible - Ecumenical." A drier description is that Fortress Press is an imprint of Augsburg Fortress Publishers, the publishing ministry for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
No Delusion Necessary: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
MINNEAPOLIS March 31, 2008 -- While Richard Dawkins's best-seller The God Delusion roiled many people of faith, theologians were nonplussed. Most theologians today do not understand God in the same way as is being criticized so heavily in such books as Richard Dawkins and others. In fact, states theologian Richard Grigg, most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago.
Yet, Grigg argues, the many efforts to reconcile scientific worldviews with Christian faith still stop shy of the radical reconception of God begun in contemporary theology and made necessary by contemporary science. In his erudite and provocative book published by Fortress Press, Beyond the God Delusion, Grigg calls for a more radical theology, in which notions of divine transcendence and immanence, personhood, power, and role in the evolving universe are radicalized and reconceived.
Building on the work of such theologians as Sallie McFague and Gordon Kaufman, and with a strong grasp of the particulars of contemporary cosmology and biology, Grigg'€™s exciting work challenges readers to an intellectual honesty as sturdy as their faith.
Richard Grigg is Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, where he also chairs the department.
Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
ISBN: 978-0-8006-6272-1
Price: $16.00 / CAN $18.99 / UK £8.99
Spec: 5.5" x 8.5", paperback, 160 pages
________________________________________
To order call Augsburg Fortress at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com
Well, we don't know if "most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago." Neither are we sure that is the best way to combat Prof. Dawkins. We'll confess that of all the writers mentioned in the above announcement we've only read Sallie McFague. Which suggests to us that a good reading of, say, The Bible might be more helpful to those who've read Dawkins' rant.
Shrimp out.
No Delusion Necessary: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
MINNEAPOLIS March 31, 2008 -- While Richard Dawkins's best-seller The God Delusion roiled many people of faith, theologians were nonplussed. Most theologians today do not understand God in the same way as is being criticized so heavily in such books as Richard Dawkins and others. In fact, states theologian Richard Grigg, most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago.
Yet, Grigg argues, the many efforts to reconcile scientific worldviews with Christian faith still stop shy of the radical reconception of God begun in contemporary theology and made necessary by contemporary science. In his erudite and provocative book published by Fortress Press, Beyond the God Delusion, Grigg calls for a more radical theology, in which notions of divine transcendence and immanence, personhood, power, and role in the evolving universe are radicalized and reconceived.
Building on the work of such theologians as Sallie McFague and Gordon Kaufman, and with a strong grasp of the particulars of contemporary cosmology and biology, Grigg'€™s exciting work challenges readers to an intellectual honesty as sturdy as their faith.
Richard Grigg is Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, where he also chairs the department.
Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
ISBN: 978-0-8006-6272-1
Price: $16.00 / CAN $18.99 / UK £8.99
Spec: 5.5" x 8.5", paperback, 160 pages
________________________________________
To order call Augsburg Fortress at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com
Well, we don't know if "most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago." Neither are we sure that is the best way to combat Prof. Dawkins. We'll confess that of all the writers mentioned in the above announcement we've only read Sallie McFague. Which suggests to us that a good reading of, say, The Bible might be more helpful to those who've read Dawkins' rant.
Shrimp out.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Lutheran CORE Responds to Draft
A Response from Lutheran CORE to the Draft Statement on Human Sexuality
March 2008The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has prepared a draft of a proposed social statement on sexuality. What follows now will be an important process of review, critique, and analysis of this statement throughout the church. This analysis will take place through congregational studies, individual responses, and comments made at the various synodical hearings. Lutheran CORE urges that all members of the ELCA participate actively in this review process. Once this review process is completed, the Task Force on Sexuality will prepare a revised version of the social statement. On the recommendation of the Church Council, this revised statement will be presented to the Minneapolis churchwide assembly, August 2009, for action.
In February 2009, the task force will prepare a series of implementing resolutions. Among these resolutions will be recommendations regarding the blessing and ordination of sexually active gay and lesbian persons. These implementing resolutions will also come before the 2009 churchwide assembly for action.
As participants within Lutheran CORE, we offer the following initial comments on the draft statement.
Our first word is a word of thanks to the members of the task force and the staff who prepared this draft. They have worked hard, under pressure, and have earned the thanks of the ELCA for their work. As the process moves toward the preparation of a final draft, Lutheran CORE participants will continue to pray for the task force and for the leadership of our church.
There is much to be commended in this draft statement. It is, for the most part, well-written and understandable. It contains numerous biblical references (although we wish that more passages were quoted in the body of the statement, rather than simply cited).
The draft touches on many theological themes that characterize specifically Lutheran perspectives. Notable in the draft are, among others, presentations on the Word of God as Law and Gospel, the uses of the Law, the centrality of justification, and the understanding of believers as simultaneously sinners and redeemed. The task force is to be commended for providing these obviously Lutheran perspectives within the draft.
Moreover, we note with appreciation the way the draft addresses many current issues on sexuality. We lift up especially the role of the family, the abuses of sexuality in our society, and the dominating influence of advertising and the media in our culture. We commend the task force for addressing these issues forthrightly. We also appreciate the way the draft recognizes the role Christians have sometimes played in the dehumanization and discrimination against gay and lesbian persons.
In short, there is much in the draft that we can commend and applaud. Unfortunately, there are also elements in the draft statement that are troubling, even worrisome, to us.
1. The first is the definition of marriage. True, marriage is affirmed as a covenant of fidelity between one man and one woman. But this definition is not consistently maintained throughout the draft. In fact, references to other forms of the family and to other relationships as valid weaken the definition of marriage as initially presented. There are few references to procreation as one of the chief purposes of marriage. The discussion on marriage and homosexuality is itself unbalanced -- one sentence for heterosexual marriage and several sentences on homosexual unions. A more detailed attention to Genesis 1 and 2 and Matthew 19:4ff would strengthen the draft considerably. We suspect, frankly, that a new definition of marriage is being suggested -- not a lifelong covenant of fidelity between one man and one woman, but a relationship of trust and love between two persons. The task force has been charged with preparing recommendations on the blessing and rostering of gay and lesbian persons. There are strong hints in the draft that open the door for recommending such blessings and ordinations -- a prospect that distresses and alarms us.
2. Secondly, there are numerous references in the draft to "pastoral" and "pastoral care." Unfortunately these terms are nowhere defined in the draft. The Lutheran heritage understands pastoral care to be a personal address that is based on God's Word of both Law and Gospel. By contrast, pastoral care in the draft appears to be largely a matter of affirmation and support.
3. Thirdly, there is -- to us -- the confusing use of the category of trust in social relationships and institutions. The observations in this section of the draft are buttressed by references to unnamed social scientists. Trust is an appropriate category to use in the God - human relationship and to relationships among humans. But, in view of the two kingdoms doctrine, the Christian's life in society -- family, state, education, commerce, the arts -- is more characterized by justice, reliability, and order, rather than trust. Or have we misunderstood the draft?
4. Fourthly, the draft needs to be significantly re-framed and re- structured. This is especially the case with the first half of the document. The draft begins a statement on sexuality with a reference to the Great Commandments, followed by an extensive discussion of the incarnation that leads in turn to a fulsome paean in honor of the resurrection and the new creation. In so doing, the draft places the whole matter of sexuality within the saving work of Christ, the Gospel. The Lutheran tradition, by contrast, places sexuality within the doctrines of creation and the Law. Human sexuality is part of God's created order for the world. Sexuality is not salvific, and sexual intercourse is not a sacrament. On this point we feel that the draft needs serious revision. It would be clearer if the draft were to begin with creation -- rather than the incarnation -- and then move to a discussion of the Word of God as both Law and Gospel. It is our hope that subsequent revisions of the draft will reflect these observations.
5. There is, moreover, the overall flow of the draft -- or rather the lack of it. Themes appear and disappear, to the point where the draft itself seems confused and disjointed. It is not always easy to discern how one theme leads to another. A much better way of dealing with the issues of marriage, family, and sexuality would be to move clearly from Biblical interpretation to practical application. We also wish that the draft had incorporated the more direct affirmations on sexuality from the American Lutheran Church and Lutheran Church in America statements on sexuality and from the ELCA Church Council's 1996 message, "Some Common Convictions."
There are other concerns we have about the draft statement -- too many to mention here. We hope and pray that the churchwide discussion that is now underway will lead to a much improved statement. We also hope and pray that the implementing resolutions will clearly re-affirm the rostering provisions that are in place in Vision and Expectations and in the relevant sections in Definitions and Guidelines.
In the meantime we urge everyone in the church to take advantage of the review process for this statement. May God through his Spirit strengthen the church in faithfulness to his Word.
For the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee:
Kenneth H. Sauer
Paull E. Spring
Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Reform) is a coalition of individuals, congregations and reform movements in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that speaks for the historic center of Lutheranism. We seek to preserve within the ELCA the authority of Scripture according to the Lutheran Confessions. Lutheran CORE's members and participants represent the vast middle of American Lutheranism, spanning geographical regions, political viewpoints and vocations, but we are united by our common theological convictions. Lutheran CORE is a voice of the solid, faithful core that is the majority of ELCA members, pastors and congregations.
More information on Lutheran CORE can be found at www.lutherancore.org
The ELCA draft social statement, related materials and an online response form are available at www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/draft/
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Bishop Brauer-Rieke: Great Joy and Pride
Shrimp here. The ELCA Bishop of Oregon writes his Synod "with great joy and pride" on the release of the First Draft.
Question: Is Jesus, or are the New Testament Epistles, "realistic" in instructing those who would be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ?
With much pride and joy, Shrimp out.
March 13, 2008"Realistic," eh? Okay. We'll be engaging with the draft soon.
Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Oregon Synod,
It is with great joy and pride that I write to you today as the first draft of our proposed ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality is released. I write with joy because this draft takes us closer to the adoption of a much needed statement for our church. I write with pride because this draft is evidence of good work done in difficult times. There is work yet to be done, but we are well on our way.
The first time I read this document I disciplined myself to read it word for word and beginning to end, but I must confess I read it with specific questions in mind. You may find yourself doing the same thing. This is understandable. However, once you’ve done this I hope you will go back and begin to digest the statement as a whole for what it is – a word to society from a Lutheran perspective about human sexuality in all it’s diverse dimensions.
As we begin to digest this document together I believe you will be pleased. The draft says much:While doing this the draft also takes seriously the challenges and realities of modern day society.
- The notion of family is front and center. It is in family that children are nurtured, kept safe and are taught the basics of trust and love. Lutherans have always maintained this.
- The statement affirms our traditional understanding that marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, through which the blessings of family flow.
- The safety and well being of children is held up as a non-negotiable throughout.
- Demeaning social trends such as the commercialization of sex, pornography, date rape and early adolescent sexual engagement are all spoken to.
- This statement also recognizes the concerns and questions of single adults, the widowed, divorced and much more.
The ELCA offers much to society around human sexuality with this statement. It is clear in proclamation, open for engagement and realistic in its hopes and expectations.
- We recognize that financial factors sometimes encourage senior adults to choose co-habitation over legal marriage.
- We recognize that families come in many configurations including single parent households, blended families, same gender led households and grandparents raising grandchildren.
- In our world children physically mature earlier than in the past, but often postpone marriage until later than has been common. This draft tackles pre-marital sexual concerns in a realistic way.
With the publication of this draft we now enter into the final stages of our social statement process. I have proposed the following to our Oregon Synod pastors and I invite you into the same journey:
First of all, this document is 45 pages long and it is not all easy reading. I am inviting pastors and other rostered leaders into leadership conversation forums. Our first responsibility is to help you, those we are called to serve, understand and responsibly engage this draft. To help you we must do our homework first.
After this I hope that over the spring and summer you and your congregation will work with the draft. This work awaits the careful conversation of the saints. I will also create a letter or presentation personally as I know many wish to hear my perspective and not all congregations may choose to spend much time on this issue.
Finally, this summer there will be synod hearings scheduled on the draft. You are encouraged to attend. At least one member of the ELCA Human Sexuality Task Force will be present at each hearing and they are most anxious to hear what you have to say. Feedback from these hearings along with written evaluations will be used to shape the final draft taken to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.
I thank you for your prayers and passions around this most central of human concerns and blessings. We have a good draft, a good process, and your loving concern to bring it to fruition. Let us do so with integrity, honesty, pride and joy.
Bishop Dave Brauer-Rieke
Question: Is Jesus, or are the New Testament Epistles, "realistic" in instructing those who would be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ?
With much pride and joy, Shrimp out.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Does Anybody Think Around Here?
Shrimp here. And you thought this was bad.
On Maundy Thursday, the following was posted on the ELCA News Blog. Note carefully the contents of paragraph 1, paragraph 2, and paragraph 3 so you know what is (journalistically speaking) of first, second, and third importance.
So you know that the whole place isn't nuts, the front page of the ELCA web site is currently featuring Michelangelo's Pietà . It doesn't get much better than that. (Meaning the answer to my headline is, "Yes." At least sometimes.)
Shrimp out.
On Maundy Thursday, the following was posted on the ELCA News Blog. Note carefully the contents of paragraph 1, paragraph 2, and paragraph 3 so you know what is (journalistically speaking) of first, second, and third importance.
See the post here, including scads of links that we ignored for you to follow. And a combination of thanks to and shame on Pastor Zip for bringing this to our attention.Lutherans wade in water during World Water Day, Easter Vigil, March 22
by Melissa Ramirez Cooper, ELCA News Service
More than 1 billion people in the world lack access to clean, safe drinking water. In an effort to bring about awareness, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in 1992 to designate March 22 as "World Water Day." "Water access is a priority to all people, and World Water Day is a day to bring attention to those in our world who lack clean, safe drinking water, and adequate sanitation services," said Patricia Zerega, director, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Corporate Social Responsibility. The ELCA social statement, "Caring for Creation Vision, Hope, and Justice," affirms the church's support for proposals and actions to protect and restore "water, especially drinking water, groundwater, polluted runoff, and industrial and municipal waste."
The new edition of the ELCA World Hunger's "Congregation Connections" and the new ELCA World Hunger "Reproducible Stories" will feature water and justice themes, said Sue Edison-Swift, communication director, ELCA World Hunger and Disaster Appeal. Both resources will be made available in April. "Just as water is foundational for life, life-giving water efforts are foundational to ELCA World Hunger," according to Kathryn Sime, director, ELCA World Hunger and Disaster Appeal. "Clean water becomes a trout farm, safety in a refugee camp, or heightened knowledge about malaria prevention," said Sime.
For Christians, water is symbolic in Baptism. "A number of ELCA congregations will be conducting Baptisms on March 22, since it is the Vigil of Easter this year," said the Rev. Marcus Kunz, executive for discernment of contextual and theological Issues, ELCA Office of the Presiding Bishop. "The Easter Vigil service is focused on Baptism and the believer's baptismal journey with Christ in his death and resurrection, following the tradition of the early church in baptizing converts at the Easter Vigil after catechesis during the season of Lent. The story of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea is read. When the Easter Vigil service is observed with gusto, a lot of water gets thrown about, and a thanksgiving prayer full of water references is prayed," he said.
So you know that the whole place isn't nuts, the front page of the ELCA web site is currently featuring Michelangelo's Pietà . It doesn't get much better than that. (Meaning the answer to my headline is, "Yes." At least sometimes.)
Shrimp out.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Retired Bishop Hendrix answers questions
Shrimp here. The York (Penn.) Daily Record has a Q&A conducted by e-mail with retired Lower Susquehanna Synod Bishop Carol Hendrix, who is a member of the ELCA Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality.
And thanks, DB, for the heads up. Shrimp out.
Q: Why is it a draft? Will it be considered by the national churchwide assembly?Read the entire interview and article here.
A: The draft represents the work to date of the task force, although not all task-force members agree with all aspects of the document as released March 13.
The national Church Council's recommendations for the proposed statement will be considered by the Churchwide Assembly Aug. 17-23, 2009, where it would require a two-thirds vote to be adopted.
Q: How did the task force decide what to focus on?
A: Because human sexuality is such a broad topic, the range of issues covered in the draft is limited.
It approaches sexuality primarily as a social issue in the same way other (ELCA) social statements address topics such as the environment, economics and health care.
It presents a framework for thinking through related issues and emphasizes responsibility and moral deliberation.
Specific topics werechosen by the task force to address issues we face as a society and as followers of Jesus Christ.
Q: The document shies from taking a position on homosexuality, saying the church has yet to reach consensus on the matter. How was this determined?
A: The reality that we have no consensus in the ELCA can be seen not only in the votes taken at recent Churchwide Assemblies but also in our life together as brothers and sisters in Christ who hold a variety of viewpoints on matters relating to gay and lesbian persons among us.
...
Q: How did the task force address the different views of Scripture underlying the conflict over same-gender relationships?
A: Task-force members themselves reflect a variety of ways of understanding and interpreting Scripture.
These different understandings and interpretations became part of the discussion, as they are whenever members of the ELCA who hold strongly differing understandings address the subject of same-gender sexual relationships.
Q: The document acknowledges the contributions to church life of committed same-gender relationships, single parishioners and other unconventional family structures. Why was this an important point?
A: It is important to the task force because it reflects reality of life in this church today.
Q: Some conservatives worry the draft statement opens the door to supporting same-gender committed relationships by defining marriage as a "relationship of love and trust between two people." Was this door purposely left open?
A: Elsewhere in the document marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
The draft has been presented to the ELCA with the request that members review and discuss it and then share suggestions for ways to revise, amend and strengthen the current text.
Q: Why did the task force express regret that Lutheran teachings have been used "to tear apart families with gay or lesbian members," and ask Lutherans to welcome gays and advocate for legal protection for them?
A: Such regret was included because some members of the task force felt strongly about this.
Q: Where do you hope this document takes the conversation within the church about sexuality?
A: I hope this draft will lead members of the ELCA, along with its ecumenical partners, to a deeper conver- sation of what it means to be the Church of Jesus Christ, called to faithfulness in all aspects of life, including who we are as sexual beings created in the image of God.
And thanks, DB, for the heads up. Shrimp out.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bishop Usgaard's Conclusion,
and then to Holy Week
Bishop Harold "Huck" Usgaard of the Southeastern Minnesota Synod has written about the draft, too. We'll spare you the opening part -- go ahead, read it all here -- and cut right to his concluding paragraphs:
We'd be surprised if any of them have anything to add during Holy Week, and Shrimp encourages you to focus this week on matters of Holy Week itself. A good blog to be reading this week is The Confessing Reader -- read some scripture, reflect on the Word of God for each day, ponder some fine artistic renderings for Holy Week, and pray for the salvation of all.
Shrimp out.
The final version of the Statement on Human Sexuality will be made available about this time next year. It will be available before our 2009 Synod Assembly, and give us an opportunity to discuss it and react to it before it is voted at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2009. We are planning substantial time during our 2009 Synod Assembly for discussion of this final statement. This will also offer an opportunity for resolutions to be discussed and voted from around our synod, and memorials to be sent to the Churchwide Assembly from the Southeastern Minnesota Synod regarding the statement.And that's all the statements Shrimp had found by the end of the week on Synodical web sites, though we know other ELCA bishops have e-mailed the professional leaders in their synods noting the release of the draft, reminding folks of the upcoming hearings, and emphasizing that this is only a draft.
Next year, at this time, recommendations regarding ordination of candidates in same sex relationships will also be made available. These were ordered by action of the 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. You will note they are not included in this draft because they were not included on the original motion to produce a Social Statement on Human Sexuality. There will be the same opportunity at the 2009 Synod Assembly to discuss these recommendations, receive resolutions to be voted, and if desired, send memorials to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
Again, from previous experience, I suspect that some in the church will confuse this first draft with the final version of the statement. Remember and remind others that this is only a preliminary draft. Everyone is encourage to take an active part in the process. There often seem to be suspicions that decisions have already been made behind the scenes. That is simply not true. This is an opportunity for members to add their input. This is the time to to study the Scripture and Confessional texts used as a basis for the draft. Engage all members in discussion about relationships of friendship and trust and the central place of marriage. Discuss the division present in our church today around the topic of homosexuality. There is so much in this draft that speaks to the challenge of living a life of Christian faithfulness in our world today. What an opportunity this offers for us as a church and as individual believers.
We'd be surprised if any of them have anything to add during Holy Week, and Shrimp encourages you to focus this week on matters of Holy Week itself. A good blog to be reading this week is The Confessing Reader -- read some scripture, reflect on the Word of God for each day, ponder some fine artistic renderings for Holy Week, and pray for the salvation of all.
Shrimp out.
Bishop deFreese Also Writes
Bishop David deFreese of the Nebraska Synod has this to say on the release of the sexuality draft:
Bishop deFreese on draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality
The Rev. Dr. David L. deFreese
Bishop
Nebraska Synod,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
March 13, 2008
ELCA First Draft of "Social Statement on Human Sexuality"
I am thankful for a church that addresses the crucial issues of life ... even when they are so deeply complex and controversial. Human sexuality is a matter deserving our most thoughtful and prayerful reflection because of its powerful impact upon our life together.
This first draft of an ELCA "Social Statement on Human Sexuality" is well rooted in Biblical scripture and human reason, and I believe, appropriately focuses upon two essential understandings: relationships and responsibility. Our relationship with God is primary in this discussion, as well as recognizing God's great design of life within community. This writing deals honestly and forthrightly with the reality of our human brokenness and selfishness. This is what we Lutherans call sin. It lifts up the human gift of responsibility in living out our lives, confronting where we fail and applauding where we flourish. Trustworthy relationships are at the heart of how we live.
This draft re-affirms that marriage is the location for full sexual expression, and testifies to the wonderful power of fidelity. It speaks to gender in friendships and confronts the risks of cohabitation. It also calls for continued prayer, study, and conversation as this church deals with same gender relationships. It wisely calls for greater protection of our children in an increasingly sexualized society, while denouncing the dangers of sexual exploitation.
This draft is not a finished product. Rather it calls for robust conversation and deliberation, hearings for people to share their understandings (of which Nebraska Synod will have two in September) and rewrites. The final draft will be voted upon at the August 2009 Churchwide Assembly.
Bishop David deFreese
March 2008
Bishop deFreese on draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality
The Rev. Dr. David L. deFreese
Bishop
Nebraska Synod,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
March 13, 2008
ELCA First Draft of "Social Statement on Human Sexuality"
I am thankful for a church that addresses the crucial issues of life ... even when they are so deeply complex and controversial. Human sexuality is a matter deserving our most thoughtful and prayerful reflection because of its powerful impact upon our life together.
This first draft of an ELCA "Social Statement on Human Sexuality" is well rooted in Biblical scripture and human reason, and I believe, appropriately focuses upon two essential understandings: relationships and responsibility. Our relationship with God is primary in this discussion, as well as recognizing God's great design of life within community. This writing deals honestly and forthrightly with the reality of our human brokenness and selfishness. This is what we Lutherans call sin. It lifts up the human gift of responsibility in living out our lives, confronting where we fail and applauding where we flourish. Trustworthy relationships are at the heart of how we live.
This draft re-affirms that marriage is the location for full sexual expression, and testifies to the wonderful power of fidelity. It speaks to gender in friendships and confronts the risks of cohabitation. It also calls for continued prayer, study, and conversation as this church deals with same gender relationships. It wisely calls for greater protection of our children in an increasingly sexualized society, while denouncing the dangers of sexual exploitation.
This draft is not a finished product. Rather it calls for robust conversation and deliberation, hearings for people to share their understandings (of which Nebraska Synod will have two in September) and rewrites. The final draft will be voted upon at the August 2009 Churchwide Assembly.
Bishop David deFreese
March 2008
Bishop Crist Also Writes on the Draft
A letter on the sexuality draft from Bishop Jessica Crist of the Montana Synod:
The draft of the proposed ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality is now available on the ELCA website. It has also been released to the news outlets, so you may be seeing and hearing reports from the secular media. I encourage you to read the document for yourself. I encourage you to consider it prayerfully. I encourage you to be in dialogue with your fellow church members respectfully.
There are a couple of things I want to point out to you:
1. This is a draft. It is only a draft. It is not the finished product. There is ample time for input, and there are appropriate channels for input. Those include responding to the questions at the end of the document, and/or attending a hearing. (We will have 2 in our Synod.
2. This is a draft of a social statement. It is not a set of guidelines on sexual ethics. A social statement is a teaching document intended to be useful in guiding deliberations on social issues. It is broader than a set of do's and don't's, and it encourages the reader to think deeply and discern wisely. It doesn't give answers to all questions. There are people who would like to have the answers set out in black and white. The document does not do that, nor was it intended to.
This document is an affirmation that God created the earth and all that is in it (including us, as sexual beings), and called it good. This document is the church's way of reclaiming the conversation on human sexuality, using the theological categories of incarnation, justification and serving the neighbor. This document is the church's reponse to a culture that is highly sexualized and often presents an "anything goes" attitude. This document affirms the totality of the human experience, including family, work, friendship, and explores trust as a significant contributor to public and private life.
I urge you to read the document thoughtfully, taking in what it says and what it doesn't say. And I encourage you to discuss it in ways that make sense, in your congregation, in other groups. And I welcome you to come to one of the hearings to be held in the Montana Synod:
Saturday, April 26: 10 a.m.--noon, Billings, St. John's Lutheran Ministries, Lillis Center Chapel, 2429 Mission Way, Billings, MT
Sunday, April 27: 3 p.m.---5 p.m., Missoula, St. Paul Lutheran Church, 202 Brooks St., Missoula, MT.
May God be with you as you move into Holy Week and Easter.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bishop Jessica Crist
Montana Synod ELCA
2415 13th Avenue South
Great Falls, MT 59405
406-453-1461
jcrist@montanasynod.org
March 13, 2008: Draft: Proposed ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,The draft of the proposed ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality is now available on the ELCA website. It has also been released to the news outlets, so you may be seeing and hearing reports from the secular media. I encourage you to read the document for yourself. I encourage you to consider it prayerfully. I encourage you to be in dialogue with your fellow church members respectfully.
There are a couple of things I want to point out to you:
1. This is a draft. It is only a draft. It is not the finished product. There is ample time for input, and there are appropriate channels for input. Those include responding to the questions at the end of the document, and/or attending a hearing. (We will have 2 in our Synod.
2. This is a draft of a social statement. It is not a set of guidelines on sexual ethics. A social statement is a teaching document intended to be useful in guiding deliberations on social issues. It is broader than a set of do's and don't's, and it encourages the reader to think deeply and discern wisely. It doesn't give answers to all questions. There are people who would like to have the answers set out in black and white. The document does not do that, nor was it intended to.
This document is an affirmation that God created the earth and all that is in it (including us, as sexual beings), and called it good. This document is the church's way of reclaiming the conversation on human sexuality, using the theological categories of incarnation, justification and serving the neighbor. This document is the church's reponse to a culture that is highly sexualized and often presents an "anything goes" attitude. This document affirms the totality of the human experience, including family, work, friendship, and explores trust as a significant contributor to public and private life.
I urge you to read the document thoughtfully, taking in what it says and what it doesn't say. And I encourage you to discuss it in ways that make sense, in your congregation, in other groups. And I welcome you to come to one of the hearings to be held in the Montana Synod:
Saturday, April 26: 10 a.m.--noon, Billings, St. John's Lutheran Ministries, Lillis Center Chapel, 2429 Mission Way, Billings, MT
Sunday, April 27: 3 p.m.---5 p.m., Missoula, St. Paul Lutheran Church, 202 Brooks St., Missoula, MT.
May God be with you as you move into Holy Week and Easter.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bishop Jessica Crist
Montana Synod ELCA
2415 13th Avenue South
Great Falls, MT 59405
406-453-1461
jcrist@montanasynod.org
Bishop Rogness on the Draft Statement
St. Paul Area Synod Bishop Peter Rogness was going to wait, but couldn't:
Dear Partners in Ministry:
At noon today the ELCA churchwide office released the Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality that had been called for by the 2001 Churchwide Assembly. This release date has been scheduled since last year. You may recall that at the time of the release of recommendations to the 2005 Churchwide Assembly regarding blessing and ordination of persons in same-gender relationships, I sent an e-letter giving some perspective and counsel as those recommendations were released.
I hadn’t planned on doing an e-letter at the time of release of this draft statement, for two reasons: (1) I have consistently maintained that there are many issues that are important in the life of the church, and I don't simply email everyone whenever the issue is about sexuality; and (2) my judgment was this statement was broadly about human sexuality—and a rather deep and complex statement as well—and wouldn’t bring on the immediate volatile response that the 2005 issues around homosexuality would bring. So that was my plan, re-affirmed last week when I got my first look at the statement.
But here it is—just a little more than three hours after the draft statement's release, and I’m sending this email message!
Why? Because one hour after its release, I was alerted to the stories that had been posted on the Star Tribune website, which I presume will be in tomorrow’s paper and will be widely read by the people in our churches. And since most of the buzz over this draft statement will come from people who have read the newspaper instead of the statement, I need to offer some help in both alerting you to the articles coming and the counter-perspective that people need to know.
There are actually two articles posted on the website. One is the national wire story carried by the Associated Press, headlined “Largest Lutheran group affirms traditional marriage in draft statement on sexuality.” The headline and article are fair and accurate. The second is a Star Tribune article that was headlined “The ELCA on ordaining gays: Preliminary statement issued today.” I was dismayed by the misleading headline, the inaccuracies in the body of the article, and, mostly, by the impression that the draft statement was all about ordaining homosexual ministers. The ELCA news service contacted the paper, which did respond by changing the headline to read “ELCA issues draft of human sexuality statement.” The article itself remains unchanged as I send this. Perhaps some of my other concerns will be changed by the time it is in print—I hope so. In any event, I want to offer some comments.
We have six months for response. Our synod has hearings in September. The draft statement itself invites (even provides) vehicle for response, knowing it isn’t perfect, but believing—as I do—that it warrants our attention and reflection. It is a fine piece of work, for which we don’t need to apologize or hide.
PETER ROGNESS
The Way it Looks from Here
March 13, 2008Dear Partners in Ministry:
At noon today the ELCA churchwide office released the Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality that had been called for by the 2001 Churchwide Assembly. This release date has been scheduled since last year. You may recall that at the time of the release of recommendations to the 2005 Churchwide Assembly regarding blessing and ordination of persons in same-gender relationships, I sent an e-letter giving some perspective and counsel as those recommendations were released.
I hadn’t planned on doing an e-letter at the time of release of this draft statement, for two reasons: (1) I have consistently maintained that there are many issues that are important in the life of the church, and I don't simply email everyone whenever the issue is about sexuality; and (2) my judgment was this statement was broadly about human sexuality—and a rather deep and complex statement as well—and wouldn’t bring on the immediate volatile response that the 2005 issues around homosexuality would bring. So that was my plan, re-affirmed last week when I got my first look at the statement.
But here it is—just a little more than three hours after the draft statement's release, and I’m sending this email message!
Why? Because one hour after its release, I was alerted to the stories that had been posted on the Star Tribune website, which I presume will be in tomorrow’s paper and will be widely read by the people in our churches. And since most of the buzz over this draft statement will come from people who have read the newspaper instead of the statement, I need to offer some help in both alerting you to the articles coming and the counter-perspective that people need to know.
There are actually two articles posted on the website. One is the national wire story carried by the Associated Press, headlined “Largest Lutheran group affirms traditional marriage in draft statement on sexuality.” The headline and article are fair and accurate. The second is a Star Tribune article that was headlined “The ELCA on ordaining gays: Preliminary statement issued today.” I was dismayed by the misleading headline, the inaccuracies in the body of the article, and, mostly, by the impression that the draft statement was all about ordaining homosexual ministers. The ELCA news service contacted the paper, which did respond by changing the headline to read “ELCA issues draft of human sexuality statement.” The article itself remains unchanged as I send this. Perhaps some of my other concerns will be changed by the time it is in print—I hope so. In any event, I want to offer some comments.
- Go to the ELCA website, if you haven’t already, and download and read the statement itself. It’s long and it’s not light reading, but it is a solid piece of work that warrants study and reflection and response.
- The Star Tribune article suggests that the draft is primarily about the ordination of gay persons. It is a 50-page report, about one and one-half pages are devoted to same gender relationships, and no pages (or sentences) are about ordination.
- The article gives the impression that the bishops of the church (article calls it Council of Bishops, but we’re actually the Conference of Bishops) are framing the document and the decision. Neither is the case. We neither authored the draft nor do we vote on policy. The task force proposes, the church council forwards, and the Churchwide Assembly votes.
- My primary concern is the inaccurate representation of what has been written. First, it is a draft statement, not a report about anything. It is, in fact, a deeply theological and deeply Lutheran approach to human beings as sexual beings, about our sexuality being inherently part of our created being, used for the building of trusting relationships. As we're bombarded with stories in the news about sexuality being badly used, this draft statement is a wonderful, teachable resource for a desperately teachable moment.
We have six months for response. Our synod has hearings in September. The draft statement itself invites (even provides) vehicle for response, knowing it isn’t perfect, but believing—as I do—that it warrants our attention and reflection. It is a fine piece of work, for which we don’t need to apologize or hide.
PETER ROGNESS
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Forum Letter: "Humble and bold . . . not"
Shrimp here, again.
Pastor Richard O. Johnson, editor of Forum Letter, the monthly companion to Lutheran Forum, has posted a copy of his article from the upcoming April 2008 issue of FL over on the reprint section of ALPB Online. This first review of the Draft ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality is entitled "Humble and bold . . . not" and can be found here for those of you who do not subscribe to the Forum Package. Those of you who do subscribe (bless you!) will be receiving it at home soon, but you can read it online now, too.
Shrimp out.
Pastor Richard O. Johnson, editor of Forum Letter, the monthly companion to Lutheran Forum, has posted a copy of his article from the upcoming April 2008 issue of FL over on the reprint section of ALPB Online. This first review of the Draft ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality is entitled "Humble and bold . . . not" and can be found here for those of you who do not subscribe to the Forum Package. Those of you who do subscribe (bless you!) will be receiving it at home soon, but you can read it online now, too.
Shrimp out.
Bishop Riley Addresses the Draft
Few of the ELCA Bishops have, thus far, made public statements on the first draft of an ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality. One who has is New Jersey Synod E. Roy Riley, who was until recently Chair of the ELCA Conference of Bishops. Shrimp found it here:
March 13, 2008Shrimp'll be on the lookout for more. You can help
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
First draft of a proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality released by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
Response of E. Roy Riley, Bishop, New Jersey Synod, ELCA
The release of the first draft of a proposed ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality marks another step in a long journey together for the Lutheran Church toward deeper understanding and discernment in the increasingly complex sphere of human sexuality.
This is a first draft. Over the next eight months, congregations of this church will have opportunity to study and discuss the draft and make proposals for revision. In early 2009, a proposed social statement will be written based on this draft and the responses, eventually coming to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis for consideration (August 2009).
The length of the draft (50 pages with footnotes) indicates both the complexity of the subject matter and the deep seriousness with which the task force has undertaken the work of declaring the theological and confessional grounding. I trust that the responses of the church will be offered out of the same in-depth, open-minded, and prayerful deliberation.
In my initial reading of the draft, I have noted in particular the following thoughts:In the consideration of homosexuality, the draft offers a number of significant statements, including the following:
- While love is to be at the center of all relationships, the statement gives great and important emphasis to the matter of trust in every relationship.
- Ethics for some are rule-driven; the ethics from this statement are responsibility-driven: responsibility for our selves, our neighbors, and the common good.
- There is a very strong emphasis on the critical role of families as the primary places for learning what love and trust are all about.
- The draft places enormous importance on the protection of the most vulnerable in matters of human sexuality, especially children.
- The draft recognizes that families are found in a variety of forms beyond the
traditional, nuclear family.- An especially strong affirmation of traditional marriage is provided.
- In all relationships, the degrees of intimacy should be matched to degrees of affection and commitment; thus the highest degrees of physical intimacy, such as intercourse, should be matched with and sheltered by the highest level of legally binding commitment, as is found in marriage.
- The range of life circumstance is recognized honestly and pastorally, from the young delaying marriage, to those who choose to remain single, to those who are single-again as a result of divorce or death of a spouse, to the marriage versus economics issues of senior citizens.
The draft also addresses a variety of other concerns, including the commercialization of sexuality and its enormous negative impact on the common good.
- confesses with regret the way in which Lutheran historical teachings concerning homosexuality sometimes have been used to tear apart families with gay or lesbian members;
- acknowledges that after many years of study and conversation, this church does not have consensus regarding loving and committed same-gender relationships;
- recognizes that while some pastors and congregations will advocate repentance and celibacy, other pastors and congregations will call our same-gender-oriented brothers and sisters in Christ to establish relationships that are chaste, mutual, monogamous, and life-long.
I am grateful for this church that takes so seriously its own faith and God’s call to take that faith into a very complex and sometimes deeply ambiguous world. We welcome all who wish to engage with us in this continuing journey of faith and life.
[Portions in italics are quoted from the draft statement.]
Argus Leader: "ELCA panel debates marriage"
The Sioux Fall (South Dakota) Argus Leader features some quotes from the South Dakota Synod Bishop:
The full article is here.ELCA panel debates marriage
Same-sex unions stance too lenient, critics say
STEVE YOUNG • MATTHEW GRUCHOW • MARCH 14, 2008
A task force drafting a statement of sexuality, originating from a request years back by the South Dakota Synod, said Thursday the church should continue defining marriage as the union of one man and one women.
The panel did not condemn same-gender relationships and acknowledged that some congregations already accept same-sex couples.
The report released by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the nation's largest Lutheran group, is part of the denomination's seven-year effort to bridge internal differences over the Bible and homosexuality. It probably will be the topic of conversation during an upcoming pastors' conference in Watertown, according to the Rev. David Zellmer, bishop of the South Dakota Synod.
Zellmer called the report "a nice piece of work," though he knew not everyone would be happy with it, including those who say the draft study seems to tolerate homosexual relations but does not celebrate them.
"There's always a chance for it to become polarizing," Zellmer said. "It speaks very clearly to what marriage is. Is everyone going to be happy? No. Is everyone going to be unhappy? I don't think that's true, either. But I'm pretty impressed with this initial start."
The Rev. Karen Soli, interim pastor at Messiah New Hope Lutheran in Sioux Falls, said she hopes church members read the draft and absorb it more than react to it.
"I would hope they would ... think and talk and pray about it," Soli said. "Instead of going back to our polarized positions, whatever they might be, I would hope we would have an open mind and spirit. They are very difficult issues."
Called a "Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality," the report is a wide-ranging study of Christian views on sexual morality, premarital sex, domestic abuse and families.
But the most anticipated part of the document was whether the task force would recommend equal standing for gay and heterosexual couples in the 4.8 million-member church.
Zellmer said he was certain the document would be discussed at a spring pastors' conference in Watertown in 10 days. There also will be two hours set aside at the Synod Assembly at the end of May to discuss it.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "...moderate stance"
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article focusses on the gay/lesbian issues:
To read it all, click here.Sexuality statement takes moderate stance
Same-sex relationships neither blessed nor condemned
By TOM HEINEN
The first draft of a social statement on sexuality appears to be deepening discussions within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America without breaking enough new ground to intensify debate over whether to approve blessings or ordinations of people in committed, same-gender relationships.
Released Thursday, the draft statement offers something to both encourage and disappoint people on each side of the debate.
The document stands by marriage as being between a man and a woman but does not condemn same-gender relationships.
It reiterates the church's call to "welcome, care for and support same-gender-oriented people and their families, and to advocate for their legal protection." And it acknowledges that some ELCA congregations advocate repentance and celibacy for same-gender couples while others call for them to have faithful, committed relationships.
In the Greater Milwaukee Synod, which has been a leader in advocating same-sex blessings and the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy, reactions to the statement varied.
"I'm grateful that it's solidly rooted in Scripture and speaks to the whole of human sexuality," said Bishop Paul Stumme-Diers of the Greater Milwaukee Synod. "The temptation can be to focus on same-gender relationships, but that topic has only one and a half pages out of 50 devoted to it.
"The draft statement reiterates that as a church we commit ourselves to responding pastorally to all relationships, and that all relationships are built upon trust," Stumme-Diers said.
Its explanations of the importance of trust in relationships are very helpful, said the Rev. Susan Gaeta of Divine Word Lutheran Church in Milwaukee. But she was disappointed that bisexual people were not mentioned.
"There's definitely further work that needs to be done," Gaeta said.
"The whole statement sets a hopeful tone for our gay and lesbian friends in that it recognizes that their needs, desires and rights are the same as for heterosexual persons," said the Rev. Barbara Rasmussen of Our Savior's Lutheran Church in Milwaukee. "It's disappointing that the term marriage is blocked from use in same-sex unions, thus leaving them in a second-class status."
Star Tribune: "ELCA Stays Neutral..."
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune begins its report:
Read it all here, especially for quotes from Bishop Peter Strommen of the Northeastern Minnesota Synod, who is the Task Force Chair.ELCA stays neutral in sexuality statement
The Lutherans' draft report sets the stage for a debate on gay ordination at their 2009 convention in Minneapolis.
By JEFF STRICKLER, Star Tribune
Facing a likely vote on the ordination of gays at the 2009 national convention, which will be held in Minneapolis, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on Thursday issued its Draft Statement on Human Sexuality. Seven years in the making, the report does not take a specific stand on gay ordination -- that will come in a position paper to be released in about a year -- but it does lay the groundwork for the impending debate.
"This is a social statement, not a policy statement," said the chairman of the task force that prepared the report, Bishop Peter Strommen of the Northeastern Minnesota Synod based in Duluth. Though the report addresses a wide range of subjects, he acknowledged that "the section on same-gender relationships is going to be the flashpoint."
Readers will look for hints on which way sentiment is running on gay issues but won't find any, he warned: "After many years of study and conversation, this church does not have consensus regarding loving and committed same-gender relationships," the 50-page document reads.
That lack of unanimity is reflected in the report. At one point, it says the church supports sexual relations only within the context of a "binding commitment, such as marriage," which it goes on to describe as "a structure of mutual promise between a man and a woman." But it also concedes that an argument can be made that fidelity outranks legal status. Homosexual relationships that "are chaste, monogamous and lifelong are to be held to the same rigorous standards and sexual ethics as all others."
Church leaders hope to keep the debate grounded in church ethics, Strommen said. "We don't want to turn this into a culture war. As a church, we have far more in common than we have differences."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...