pretty good lutherans

(Note to readers: What follows is an e-mail message sent out this week by Bishop Peter Rogness of the St. Paul Area Synod.)

PART THREE: Registering Dissent

Dear Partners in Ministry,

I am aware that some of the networks that opposed the ministry policies have begun formulating strategies of dissent. You’ve seen the media reports about the meeting of Lutheran CORE this past weekend. WordAlone, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, and other networks also gather to ponder their strategies.

I understand the desire to register dissent. As I described in part one of this e-letter, what the assembly action sought to do was to not change policy or teaching from one position to another, but to recognize and give affirmation to two differing positions and to ask that policy be drafted to allow room for both. It sought to say that we will adopt a “structured flexibility” that gives expression to the convictions of both those who support and those who oppose the possibility of homosexual persons in relationship serving in this church.

But to those opposed, it feels like those in support “won,” which, of course, they did if the opposing view is that there should be no possibility for such persons serving anywhere. So how do “traditionalist” congregations register their continuing opposition? The options seem limited:

(CONTINUED)

• Leave the ELCA altogether. Does disagreement on ministry policies related to homosexual persons rise to the level of heresy intolerable for remaining together in the same church? For some the answer is yes, and the decision is to leave. I believe that in the Lutheran framework of law and gospel, this is a matter of the law that falls in the “kingdom of the left,” the realm of living faithfully in the world, and not the “kingdom of the right,” the gospel and the reign of God. Some will be able to accept living with disagreement; others may not and will choose to leave.
• Stay in, but give no mission support. See further discussion below.
• Adopt a congregational position. The policy language affirms that congregations faithfully responding to their ministry context may differ in what they believe to be a faithful response to living as the church in that place. I’m aware of a resolution under consideration by some congregations that uses language from the assembly action to declare opposition to the recognition of same gender relationships or the calling of ordained homosexual persons in such relationships.

Regarding the first: As I’ve repeatedly said, I regret if a congregation decides to leave the ELCA over this matter. We belong in ministry together and are enriched by each others’ presence, even as we continue to engage in “the mutual conversation and consolation of the saints” around hard topics.

Regarding the third: Of these three options I see the third at the most healthy, but even that concerns me. Such a congregational declaration may well be hurtful to members who don’t agree and themselves have theological convictions or personal experiences or both that place them outside the congregational action. But for congregations where there is broad unrest over these decisions, such an action might be helpful.

Withholding mission support as the expression of dissent
I am most troubled by the decision to withhold financial support. We would never encourage parishioners to vote with their pocketbook as a noble and churchly way to live together within the congregational fellowship, using their money as a weapon to punish or express disagreement. I don’t think it’s any different in expressing disagreements in our common life as a church.

A common refrain coming out of last weekend’s CORE meeting suggested a response of “stay in the church body, but give no mission support.” I am grateful that only two congregations of this synod have notified me of such a decision. I know from my conversations that there are other congregations where some parishioners have raised the question.

I am aware of one congregation that announced a council decision to withhold and was met by an angry counter-response of members unhappy with that announcement, who in turn announced they would divert their offerings from the congregation. Using money that is intended for God’s mission as a weapon in an argument is not a pretty sight.

One letter I received indicated the congregation would suspend future mission support in favor of “support of Lutheran ministries.” It is exactly those Lutheran ministries–a whole host of them, including, perhaps, fundamental support of some of the ministries they may select for direct donation–that will suffer as financial support is withdrawn. The decision to which the congregation objects was made by 1,045 voting members of the churchwide assembly; they personally received no financial gain or benefit from their votes. They were acting as stewards of the life of this church. One may disagree with their decision, but a financial decision to withhold mission support will not affect those voters. It will not punish them. But it will affect Lutheran ministry, including:

* 260 missionaries in over 50 countries;
* The development and redevelopment of ministries in this country, including ministries in communities of poverty;
* The support of the system of theological education of pastors who have served congregations throughout this church;
* A life together as a church body that prepares materials, training, and events for worship, evangelism, education, youth ministry, and campus ministries;
* A network of social service agencies larger than any other network in the country.

This list could go on for pages. I’ve not even mentioned the life together closer to home, the avenues of support to leaders and congregations in various ways. None of these ministries are directly related to decisions around ministry policies. But all of these ministries are weakened when congregations decide to withhold mission support.

Biblical metaphors for our shared life
Two biblical metaphors for the shared life we have in the church come to mind, and are, I believe, instructive. The first is the church as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12, among others), where all the members, though different, have need of each other; and where one member cannot say to another, in effect, “because I am not you, I have no need of you.” When on his final night with his disciples, Jesus prayed that his followers would be one (John 17), he surely knew of the tensions and controversies that would be certain to emerge. The unity for which Christ prayed was the unity arising from life with him, not on human decisions or agreements. We belong together, centered on Christ and his grace alone.

The second metaphor is the church as the bride of Christ, in which the unity is compared to that of a marriage. All of us who are married know, as I do, that at times disagreements–sometimes deep and troubling and marriage-threatening–appear and must be faced. We decide to remain committed to the marriage, a shared life, or we don’t. I have never said to my wife: “I’ll stay married to you, but because I’m offended I will contribute no financial support to this marriage. I won’t pay the mortgage or buy groceries or clothes for the kids, and I will not participate in the shared chores of the household.” The marriage could cease to exist. I don’t understand how a congregation can choose to remain part of a church body, participates in all the benefits of that shared life, but decides to provide no financial support. It is God’s work in the world, done together in our shared life as church, which suffers from this course of action. I hope congregations that consider this response can resist this option. We are church together, or we are not.

Strengthening the mission and witness of the church
I dare to believe that God who has come to us in Jesus Christ continues to be the source of life of this church, that the decisions carefully and prayerfully made can be used by God to strengthen the witness and mission of this church. In our sensitivity to those troubled by the decisions, we ought not lose sight of those for whom these same decisions open doors of welcome and possibility, claiming gifts for ministry that were previously excluded. I am always quick to acknowledge that all of our convictions should be clothed in humility and respect for the possibility that those convicted otherwise may be correct. Yet at the same time, I dare to believe that God uses our decisions for God’s work in the world, and God will find ways to use even these decisions to offer us new life and vigor as a church in this time and place.

I care deeply for this church, for how God has blessed us, for how the Spirit moves through us, and for how we draw strength from one another. And I deeply appreciate being partners in ministry with you and for the careful, committed, and gifted leadership you give to our shared work.

Peter Rogness

****

PART TWO: Scripture as Authority: Can’t the Bible Just Settle This?

Dear Partners in Ministry,

Another frequent stream of conversation over the past month has centered on Scripture. So let’s look at those conversations.

Scripture as authority
Those unhappy with the churchwide assembly decision will often say it runs counter to 2,000 years of understanding the Bible on this matter. Others make a corollary observation that the decision separates us from the great majority of Christian teaching and practice over those same 2,000 years. These same observations were made 39 years ago in my church body (the former American Lutheran Church) by the 42 percent who opposed the decision to ordain women, a practice that continues to be opposed on biblical grounds by the vast majority of Christians around the world. My point: Scripture is indeed our authority, but often leaves the believing community working hard to discern its leading in a particular time and place.

In the days following the assembly, each synod bishop was in communication with his/her synod. The bishops were as varied in their views as the church at large. Bishop Robert Driesen wrote to the Upper Susquehanna Synod in Pennsylvania:

I did not support the ministry recommendations of the Task Force on Human Sexuality, because I cannot overcome the scriptural passages that I believe are clear on these matters. I have also said, however, that I know there are people in this synod who disagree with me on this, and I am not willing to say that they simply have abandoned the scriptures. Instead, they point me to the Christ who is the Word of God and who is held at the heart of the scriptures even as an infant he was held in the manger….While I disagree with their conclusions, I know them to be my brothers and sisters in Christ…

The silver lining here–if I can take such a giant step–is in our impetus to examine Scripture. There’s been a renewed interest in some of the fine study materials the ELCA’s sexuality task force prepared, especially “Journey Together Faithfully, Part 2,” a six-session course published in 2003 that examines our use of Scripture particularly around these matters. An accompanying piece entitled “Background Essay on Biblical Texts,” by ELCA seminary professors Arland Hultgren (Luther Seminary) and Walter Taylor (Trinity Seminary), who themselves come to different conclusions, but together lead us into deeper examination of the biblical passages related to homosexuality.

At last year’s theological conference, arising out of the ELCA’s Book of Faith Initiative,
Dr. David Lose led us in thinking about understanding and preaching the Bible not as a rule book that sits on the library shelf, but as a series of concentric circles that anchors us in the central truths at its core, and moves out from that center in concentric circles, all emanating from the heart of the faith. I don’t think anyone would claim that the church’s teaching about homosexuality is at the very heart of the faith. The disagreement seems to relate to where it belongs in these series of concentric circles–whether these matters are located very close to the center, as if to get it wrong is to reject Christ, or as far out as the passages that speak of the sun moving around the earth.  Or somewhere in between. I believe there’s room for discussion–fruitful discussion if done respectfully.

We are in a time, I dare hope, of rediscovering the authority of Scripture in the life of our church in a way that takes us away from the poles of proof texting on the one hand (“hurling Bible verses at each other,” my brother calls it) and dismissing the Bible as an interesting but optional old book. At our best, we Lutherans have discussed Scripture without shying away from the complexity of digging deeper for nuance and interpretation as we live into and embrace its meaning for our lives.

I choose to believe that we can step away from using Scripture as a weapon and use it as an avenue that leads us more deeply into holy living. At the heart of that holy living will be a humility toward God, toward Scripture and toward one another. We thank God for Martin Luther’s leading us to a re-centering on Scripture as the “source and norm” of our faith and life. But when Luther spoke without humility (he was, you recall, prone to do that with some regularity!), he could lose sight of what lies at the center of Scripture’s concentric circles: “This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture in Joshua 10:13 tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

Scripture is a treasure, but its value–as Bishop Driesen was quick to name–is that it brings to us at its core the God we come to know in Jesus the Christ. We will continue to cite Scripture in our discussions of sexuality and other matters. But let’s always be sure that we never, in all our conversation about the authority of Scripture, never lose our clarity over that fundamental truth.

Peter Rogness

* * * * *

PART I: The Heart of the Decision:Doing a Peculiarly Lutheran Thing

Dear Partners in Ministry,

In my e-letter last month following decisions by the Churchwide Assembly, I began by saying “Take a deep breath.”

Many have done just that. And many have encouraged others to do the same. It’s also clear that in between those deep breaths, lots of conversation is going on!

As I have talked with pastors and others around the synod, I have been proud of the way so many of you are giving leadership these days — patient, caring, listening, steady leadership. Often it has been hard as you have listened to some members deeply troubled by these recent decisions. I am grateful for your leadership.

Last week you received an e-letter from Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson sharing some thoughts on the ongoing life of the church. I, too, had been formulating some thoughts about how I’ve seen things unfolding here. I want to reflect on three streams of conversation in particular. As I’ve mulled and written, it’s gotten even longer than normal (and normal is long enough!). So I’m going to send three e-letters over the next several days, this and two more.  And my reflections are going to be around these three streams that are often at the heart of the conversations that arise among people troubled by this decision:

• Today: The Heart of the Decision: Doing a Peculiarly Lutheran Thing
• Wednesday: Scripture as Authority: Can’t the Bible Just Settle This?
• Thursday: Registering Dissent

The Heart of the Decision: Doing a Peculiarly Lutheran Thing

Much of Christendom and virtually all secular media understand the church as an organization. Were that so, the decisions about organizational structure would be decisions of ultimate importance. For Lutherans the church is the work of the Holy Spirit that (as we learned in the explanation to Third Article in Luther’s Small Catechism) “calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth.” That, and the central understanding of God’s claiming us by grace alone, frees us from getting all matters exactly right ourselves, frees us to live with ambiguity, paradox, curiosity, and open-ended questions ripe for explanation. It is a gift we have as Lutherans and one that positions us well for living in this complex world.

(Continued)

Lutheran theology delights in paradox and ambiguity, holding seemingly contradictory truths side-by-side. I’ve been in several conversations among Lutherans and Catholics and have come to learn that one of the most baffling of Lutheran concepts is one we hold dear: simul justus et peccator. We are simultaneously saint and sinner, justified and fallen. In my synod assembly report, I spoke of the Madison Agreement of 1912 that settled the raging fights of the election controversy among Norwegian Lutherans in this county by agreeing that two contradictory explanations of God’s work of salvation could exist side-by-side in the same church. Because we know the church to be given life and shape by the Spirit, defined only by the presence of the Word being preached and the Sacraments administered, much of the rest of the church’s life is lived in a spectrum of gray, not in black and white.

The decisions of the recent churchwide assembly need to be understood in this way. The public perception, reinforced by some media, suggests that a toggle switch got thrown from one side to the other, that we taught and believed one thing and now we teach and believe the opposite. That is not what happened. A close examination of the decisions makes that clear. Our challenge is that this takes more understanding and explanation than that for which most of us have patience. But such a challenge presents us with an opportunity to teach and grow in faith.

The study materials prepared to guide the church through this process and the adopted social statement are, when it comes to homosexuality, descriptive, not proscriptive. They describe differing understandings held by people in this church, and they describe the biblical and theological thought behind those positions. Then comes the peculiarly Lutheran thing: the adopted proposals call us to respect that these contradictory positions can be held by clear conscience and biblical attentiveness (my words). Not simply tolerated but respected, and held together in a way that the polity and practices of this church will make room for both. As difficult as that might be, we’ll “bear one another’s burdens” and find a way to respect each others’ bound conscience.

And that’s what the ministry proposals do. They open the polices of this church for congregations to be able to call those most gifted for ministry in their context–including gay and lesbian clergy whose relationships meet a standard every bit as faithful and committed as married heterosexual clergy.

But it also regards as a faithful place to stand those congregations that believe this is not a faithful and appropriate response.

So what does this mean?

Can these inherently contradictory positions exist side-by-side? I believe so. If we are The-Church-of-the-Absolutely-Final-Word-on-Homosexuality, well, then such positions probably cannot. But we are the church of Jesus Christ. The God we meet in Jesus Christ is our absolute. That’s non-negotiable. And as Lutherans, we’re not only anchored in Christ, but in grace alone, which means none of our efforts–including getting particular teachings right–determines whether we’re right with God or not. Shot through with imperfection and sinful to our very bone, we throw ourselves in the hands of God’s grace. That’s our core.

And then we set about being the people God calls us to be, giving it our best shot.

So we move out in mission.

The undercurrent of these decisions is mission. That’s unlike much of the civil debate that parallels all this and centers on individual rights. God sends us into the world to care for one another and for the world. These proposals have at their core the opening of possibilities for strengthened mission:

• If congregations believe they can minister best to gay and lesbian people in their communities by offering recognition and support to couples finding lifelong love and companionship in each other, they may do that.
• If some congregations seeking to call a pastor identify an individual in such a relationship who has the gifts to strengthen the mission to which God calls them, they may call that person as pastor of their congregation.
• If other congregations are drawn to be present in mission with different convictions on these matters, they are supported in their work as well.
• No congregation’s ministry suffers from this decision, but some congregations will now have new possibilities opened to them.

So can we now focus on the work God calls us to do… together? It’s time!

For most of the years of the ELCA’s existence–and specifically since 2001 and culminating last month–this church has wrestled with ministry policies in study groups of all kinds, forums, congregational meetings, narthex and parking lot conversations, council meetings, websites and blogs, conference and synod and churchwide assemblies. For much of that time a common refrain has been “Can’t we spend this energy talking about the mission in the world God calls us to?!” But these issues weren’t to be ignored. They were and are important, so the wrestling continued. The discussions have sometimes been angry, more often civil, usually grounded in prayer and common purpose for the life of this church. I believe we can be proud of how we have undertaken these discussions.

Now we have made decisions, decisions that I believe respect the integrity and faithfulness of people who disagree. Decisions don’t change minds…but the decision has been made. The differences may continue to divide some of us sharply. Some who disagree will nevertheless choose to cling to those common convictions that unite us as Lutherans and are the core from which we draw strength. Others may choose to find active ways to dissent or to leave. (More on the issue of dissent in part three of this trilogy.) But with those actions completed, we are freed to choose to thrust ourselves into God’s work in the world.

Leading into God’s mission in the world

The church has decided, and from this point forward, I claim the decisions of the church. I will lead this part of our church into living out these policies, which have sought to respect the different views held by its members. I will continue to seek to be the pastor of all in this synod. I will continue to respect your strong convictions. I will listen. I will pray with all of you who agree and disagree.

Some of you are in congregations where members are so deeply disturbed they choose to sever ties. You encourage them to stay, but if remaining in membership is such an overwhelmingly negative matter, you give them assurance that the body of Christ is bigger than a single congregation or single denomination and wish them godspeed. And you focus on the mission God has given to you to do in your place.

Similarly, for us as church together, I believe it’s time for us to move forward and outward. I don’t believe we can do that by living in complaint, rancor, and negativity. If the decisions made are such a stumbling block that dominates congregational energy, aggravates fellowship, and takes all joy from giving wholeheartedly to the work we do together, then in some cases separation may happen–I might even say that if this is the only way a congregation can return to an energetically positive attitude towards its work beyond the congregation, maybe it needs to happen for mission in the world to once again be put center stage.

I will regret if such a thing unfolds with any congregation of this synod. But, if it should, I will seek to partner in that decision in a way that itself is respectful, recognizing that the unity of Christ alone can still be present in differing organizational settings, just as we have learned ecumenically. To any congregations where that may happen, I will support you, pray for you, and remember you. The unity of Christ will be present in both our bodies and living separately will allow us to move beyond arguing into the important work God calls us to do.

The decisions we made arose out of prayer and discernment of God’s leading. I choose to believe that the life of the church draws its breath from the Spirit, and the Spirit will breathe new life and new possibilities out of these decisions. This is the Lord’s church, and the Lord has work for us to do.

Let’s have at it.

Peter Rogness

______________________________________________

©Pretty Good Lutherans / By Susan Hogan

Special thanks to “Deep Chalice.”

Creative Commons photo licensed with and by Arturo Nikolai

Thanks for visiting Pretty Good Lutherans. Come again.

Tags: Bishop Peter Rogness, dissent, Lutheran CORE, ministry, Word Alone

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 7:39 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.