Two pastors, two points of views
Pastor David Housholder of Huntington Beach, Calif.
Pastor David Housholder of Huntington Beach, Calif., may be the closest thing the ELCA has to a ‘surfer dude’ pastor. When he isn’t hanging 10 on the water, you might find fight him in snow country on a pair a skis.
All that risky athleticism doesn’t carry over to his theology. Housholder is a self-described conservative, Pentecostal-leaning Lutheran who believes the Bible is inerrant (without error.)
He’s on leave as an ELCA pastor, but functions as the main “preacher/teacher” at Robinwood Church which, he says, isn’t an ELCA congregation, though it’s applied for affiliation. He and his wife, Wendy, are listed as elders there.
“We believe that God’s plan for you is financial abundance so that you can practice generosity and generative living,” the church’s Web site says.
(CONTINUED)
A few days ago, Housholder posted an essay on his blog titled, “Why Lutherans can’t evangelize.” He wrote that the Lutheran Church was beautiful “in a Volvo/Ikea sort of way” and complained “we more or less have no functional eschatology (end times teaching).”
Housholder went on to identify a litany of Lutheran Church “weaknesses.”
Pastor Erik Samuelson of Spokane, Wash.
That’s where Pastor Erik Samuelson enters the scene. He’s also on the West Coast, only up North in Spokane, Wash., at Bethlehem Lutheran Church.
On Twitter, Samuelson describes himself as a “bartender of grace, bricoleur, pastor, father, husband … homebrewer [and] disciple of Jesus.”
He’s also a pastor who doesn’t run from debate. Last year, he offered a “straight” point of view to counter that of an ELCA lesbian pastor on the Web site Queerty.
Now, he’s penned a rebuttal to Housholder. Of Housholder’s Pentecostalism, Samuelson writes: “… I don’t think it will really because the driving force of Lutheran ways of doing things.”
__________________________________________________
Thanks for visiting Pretty Good Lutherans. Come again!
Tags: eschatology, Housholder, NALC, CORE, LCMC, Queerty, Robinwood, Samuelson
The following individuals are known murder victims with ELCA ties killed since Pretty Good Lutherans was started in September 2009:
February 27th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“Pentecostal-leaning”? [Pastor Housholder] refers to Arminian theology. Arminian theology basically says that you lose your salvation every time you sin. It is the basis of the denomination now known as the Church of the Nazarene.
I became a Lutheran specifically to get away from the paranoid-driven, guilt-ridden part of Arminian theology. It teaches you to condemn others (all “others”) and teaches that you can be perfect like Christ on Earth through the elimination of original sin. Arminians believe that Lutherans (and Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists) will burn in Hell.
None of those concepts are in any way compatible with Lutheran theology. That’s why it was rejected by Lutherans in Europe.
Are obtaining higher attendance numbers really worth embracing this questionable and very unsound doctrine? I certainly hope not. We must be very careful not to become the pharisee in Matthew 23:15 who “travels land and sea to make one proselyte” and by doing so “makes him twice as much a son of hell”. Arminians often resort to tactics of coercion, fear, and intimidation as their methods of conversion — specifically toward young adolescents. Tell a 12 year old kid to do exactly this or burn in hell, and you’ll win every time.
It is our mature and reasoned Lutheran faith that is our greatest asset, and I’d shudder at the idea of anyone seeking to “bastardize” our teachings with American fundamentalism simply to increase church attendance.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Michael, did you read David’s writings and the comments (including Erik’s)? It’s very thought provoking (and no one on the blog or comments suggests embracing the Arminianism you describe) and worth the read, including the comments.
Secondly, most evangelism oriented Lutheran pastors (i.e. seeking and leading the Lost) I have encountered do not attempt to do anything “simply to increase church attendance”, but rather so people can come to know Jesus.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I would be very wary and concerned if someone was trying to bring fundamentalist views into theology to “increase church attendance” as Michael stated. Granted, it is the churches like the Apostolic Pentecostal and others that are growing in membership (not to say they or any of the others are quite as extreme as fundamentalism), but in many cases the growth does arise from “scaring” people into accepting their doctrine. Jesus never used blatant fear to bring people to God, so why should we? And I question the validity of a faith built on fear – what motivation does this provide for living a loving life and loving others?
I appreciate what Pastor Samuelson had to say, “I think Luther wasn’t so worried about the end times because either a) we are in them now or b) they we are not and they’ll come later. And really, what difference would it make. Plant your tree, live your life, love your neighbor.” I could not agree more with this. What difference does it make? Jesus says in Mark 13:32 that He knows not the time nor the hour; only his “Father in heaven” knows. Certainly after that verse Jesus says, “Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.” (NIV) But I don’t think this indicates that we must be all caught up in end times; they are in no way central to the Gospel/Good News. We do not know when the end times will come; they will come when they come, and all we can do is live life as God calls us to live it.
I have a couple of quite conservative Pentecostal friends. They and their family are brilliant, loving people. They think my views are just as “out there” as I perceive theirs to be. We must understand that the people we don’t agree with certainly don’t agree with us either. They may be just as convicted as we are. And there’s an abundance of views between extreme fundamentalist and extreme liberalism and/or relativism. We are not called to “battles of theology”, we are called to engagement and love. Perhaps this all sounds idealistic, but it’s very much the truth.
Thank you, Susan, for posting the links to these
February 27th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
David, wonderful comments. Actually, Luther did view the world through a daily “balance sheet” paradigm regarding sin, so I’m not sure that he was that terribly removed from the “Armininian”. Further, if Luther were alive today, I’m not so sure that he wouldn’t be aligning himself with the Evangelicals of Catholics and doing more “scaring”, as has been noted.
February 27th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Kevin, since Housholder’s church website specifically endorses the notion of “prosperity gospel” theology, that is all I need to know.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I just want to thank Susan for posting the essay and Erik for his thoughtful comments which have been very helpful.
Erik’s blog is especially good and I would recommend it wholeheartedly–I am enjoying it.
I would invite everyone to read both of our essays, however, before criticizing them–just good practice in general in life.
Continue to hope that the ELCA has room for open minded conservatives like myself who value the opinions of others.
David Housholder
Robinwood Church
Huntington Beach
February 27th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Michael, agreed, as a lifetime Lutheran I too don’t fully buy into “prosperity gospel” theology. However – and this is not meant to disrespect – I’ve seen the ELCA for 20+ years follow social justice initiatives that are nothing more then the apologetic bookend to “liberation” theology, a new age, secular-based (Marxist) teaching in my opinion. With all this new theology, what’s a poor ole’ traditional Lutheran like me to do?
February 28th, 2010 at 7:34 am
Kevin says the ELCA has been following a “Marxist” teaching? It sure would be nice if right-wingers would come up with a newer, more accurate term for change, growth, and progress. But, as always, the right-wing resorts to false platitudes, scare tactics, paranoia, and fear-based arguments.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Michael,
Change, growth and progress can be good-and it can be bad. Not all change is good-look at our automobiles. They make life easy for us but foster pollution and environmental problems. There is nuclear war and nuclear medicine.
I am in the same league with Kevin, the ELCA has changed, but it seems many of the changes, ranging from redefining the Holy Trinity; a trend towards universalism (see the first edition of the ELCA study bible, later changed; and the fact that Bishop Hanson never agrees with certain Presidents while telling us to vote for others gives me pause.
The laity see this, and are leaving, in droves. We can agree to disagree, but when we the leadership blatantly promoting certain things, and dismissing those who disagree, then the church has slipped into becoming all politics, all the time.
I would use a different term than Kevin. It is not Marxism, it is heterodoxy-trying to be of two minds. We all know what the bible says about being lukewarm. The ELCA needs to take some ownership of the stances it is changing, and either fully embrace them or not embrace them.
But you can’t be of two minds on some central issues in our life together. As the old song goes, if you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Pastor David,
I appreciate both your essay and the respect and openness with which you value other opinions. I think people (including myself) have adopted the idea that only “liberals” can possibly be “open-minded” and/or “value the opinions of others”. Society has come to see conservatives as opposing these two modes of thinking. Clearly that is not the case; thank you for reminding us of that.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Michael,
I’m one of those terrible grace oriented confessional Lutherans who deeply disagrees with the CWA actions.
So how odd that I spent most of last Sunday evening with a young man who hasn’t seen his father in years because said parent is in jail. While serving his own time, his mom died. The upshot left him homeless. That’s why he was in my church last weekend. He was part of a group sleeping in our Sunday school wing for the Cold Weather Shelter. Last week we started a sermon series on the prodigal brothers. He asked if someone could pick him up so he could be in church again this Sunday. And so he was.
So, why was he there this morning? Was it the false platitudes, the scare tactics or the paranoia that brought him back to an orthodox congregation that cares for him?
Tell me about the ministries in your congregation and how they differ?
February 28th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Hey Michael, while I appreciate your conjecture, I must nevertheless inform you that you are incorrect on several points. You see, I’m neither a right winger nor a Republican and I probably despise “W” even more than you do. Instead, I’m a Libertarian – which is frankly neither politically right nor left. Libertarians – the most tolerant of all political types – believe in enough of each political spectrum to adequately offend most members of the political right and left.
Second, you seem to have a problem with my logic whereby I note that the ELCA is following Marxist-based teaching with regard to its “social justice” theology which I feel is akin to “liberation” theology. Fine, that is your opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that “liberation” theology does indeed have origins rooted in Marxist economic theory. (Should you not believe me, look up “liberation” theology for yourself and see what it says about the relationship to Marx – seriously, no “scare” tactics here). Developed as a reation to the true social injustices experienced in post-war Latin America, “liberation” theology became an alliance between many Catholic priests and the leftist (of Marxist) parties within these countries to fight such injustices. Right or wrong, in my opinion, these alliances are very similar to current actions by the ELCA whereby the denomination: (1) consistently and IMO unjustly denigrates those who have constituted the “traditional” demographic base of US Lutheranism (see some of Bishop Hanson’s comments to the ELCA Youth at New Orleans last year which frankly could have been presented by the NAACP), and (2) perhaps most importantly, the absolute alliance between the ELCA and the more-left leaning Democratic party (see “ELCA Washington Office Staff Responds to 2011 Federal Budget Proposal” from the ELCA website dated 2/26/2010).
Look, you and I are I’m sure very different Lutherans and will likely never reconcile on theology and politics. However, I am nothing if not honest in how I present facts – you may not like that I used the term “Marxist”, but tough, that’s the term found in history books when describing the origins of “liberation” theology. Futher, you may not like that I feel that the ELCA is subscribing to a form of “liberation” theology. But again, I say tough. Clearly, the ELCA is engaging in secular-based leftist political alliances.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Hey thanks for the shout out, Susan. I saw your link when you first posted it, but I just now figured out that you’d written about me too. I’m pretty sure neither David nor I ever thought this little exchange would be so popular (I was just spouting off on a blog like I do from time to time). It makes me think this “interweb” deal might be the source of a Lutheran movement much like the ol’ printing press was 500 years ago. Are blogs the “pamphlets” of today. (And when can we expect the 21st Century version of Cranach’s woodcuts?)
I share brother Housholder’s prayer that the ELCA has room for open minded conservatives like myself who value the opinions of others. And I appreciate the tone of all the responses (to all three of these blogs) even though I’m one of those terrible grace oriented confessional Lutherans who deeply agrees with the CWA actions.
I’m not kidding people, something is up with Lutherans in America–and it looks like the Holy Spirit to me. Gates of Hell beware!
WordAlone president Jaynan Clark had a quote in their most recent newsletter that says “Yes, Billy Graham still haunts me with his notable comment years ago that Lutherans have the theology, they just don’t know how to use it.” I think we may be figuring it out.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Thanks to Erik and David for their essays, and to all who posted or read along. My hope is that you will continue to find a way to stay in conversation with one another.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
(Note to readers: Two paragraphs and one sentence were removed by me. Michael, please watch the tone of your comments. -Susan)
Isn’t it funny that all of the “conservative” (falsely-named “confessional”) Lutherans claim that people are leaving in droves?
Guess what? Not one person in my congregation has left as a result of the CWA resolutions. In fact, to my knowledge, not one person in my region has left the ELCA as a result of the resolutions. Maybe we are just above the fray, or maybe we think that our binding comes from more than just our politics.
Now, look… if you’re going to obsess about homosexuality, then the ELCA is not the place for you. Go be LCMS. It seems that they’re interpretations of Scripture are much more in line with you “conservatives” than it will ever be with those of us whom are just living our lives and continuing to worship.
Kevin, I would believe you are a libertarian if you actually followed libertarian philosophy. Sorry, “family values” don’t fall under that. You’re a disgruntled Republican, so just admit it.
Brian, you can provide all of the anecdotes you want. It will never change the fact that I’ve seen fundamentalists and “conservatives” destroy lives and families simply out of stubbornness and a fear of change.
Christianity and the Gospel will forever be about much more than the petty issues and ridiculously false platitudes you’ve chosen to embrace. So, if you really think that the ELCA has become “Marxist” in its theology, leave.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:46 am
Gosh Michael, with “friendly” people such as yourself, why would anyone want to leave the ELCA?!
Susan, I apologize for getting so political in the above comments – the whole political thing frankly misses the point. Yes, I’m a libertarian (sorry Michael it’s true), but infinitely more important is that I am a follower of Christ. Always have been and alway will be.
In the end, I’m happy that Christian churches tend to the poor, sick and hungry – as Jesus called them to do. It’s just that I don’t ever want them to do so under the name of Marx, Republicans, Democrats, UFO’s, and yes, perhaps even Luther. To do so is nothing more than idolatry.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:51 am
Michael,
So you’re saying it’s OK for you to make sweeping judgments based on your own limited personal experiences, but the personal experiences of others are of no consequence simply because they are not yours? I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Because I find it a tad over-reaching for you to claim no single person, in your entire region, has left the ELCA because of CWA actions even as I know many orthodox individuals and congregations deeply involved in life changing ministries, including effective outreach to gay and lesbian folks.
In other words, not only do I not believe you, I also think the basis of some of your claims border on being just plain silly. With such obvious errors as you’ve put forth, it kinda refutes the rest of your argument. I suggest it may prove useful to emote less and listen more carefully.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:54 am
11,305 downloads as of this morning.
Just knocked the essay out in two hours last week for a Lutheran Renewal publication (I was behind on a deadline). Now it has taken on a life of its own.
Great comments on my blog (not all in agreement) from one of our Bible Schools in Camrose, Alberta, our seminary in Hong Kong, and some dialog-friendly LCMS “black shirts.”
Got called a “servant of Satan,” which was pretty funny. Actually made my day in a funny sort of way.
Like Erik, I just want to see us talking about reaching the lost. I believe we have it in us to do so. But it will take some intentionality. It doesn’t come naturally for us.
I even believe we have it in us to translate this conversation into action.
A lot of conservatives are leaving the ELCA; but many of us are also being pushed out. If I had a $100 bill for every time someone said “Just leave!” (see comments in this vein above), I could retire.
What if we love this family of origin and want to stay?
Just a reminder that we Christians are the love club. We ought not be judgmental; but we can be fruit (of the Spirit) inspectors. Galatians 5:22.
Our President Obama is calling for a more civil discussion tone in America. I would wholeheartedly agree. It would be good for America and good for the ELCA.
Thanks, Susan, for lining your blog up with this intention.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Kevin, you think calling people Communists (or Marxists) — because the ELCA has permitted individual congregations to choose whether or not they can call a same-sex partnered pastor — is “friendly”? That’s a new one.
A libertarian would absolutely support the concept of individual congregations to make this choice. Instead, you’re demanding that a single rigor be imposed upon all ELCA congregations. That would be absolutism and a direct contradiction of libertarian ideals. Yet, I’ve often found that disgruntled Republicans, like yourself, run to a label such as “libertarian” or “constitutionalist” without ever being either.
So, like I said, if you don’t want to be part of the “Marxist” ELCA (as you called them), no one is forcing you to stay. If you don’t want to be aggressively criticized for your wording, then think more carefully before posting them.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
(Note to readers: I removed two paragraphs from this post. -Susan)
Sadly, it is comments like the above that show us the divide we are in. There are many of us, Michael, who opposed the CWA decisions on the basis of pastoral leadership issue. YOu can paint us all as bigots, fine. Paint with a broad brush, that will keep on helping the conversation (not).
I am finding that one side is calling the other bigots and far right conservatives; another side is using terms like liberal extremists , marxists and heretics.
Neither is right. I don’t see a lot of love being expressed here. Maybe our moms were right, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
Brian McLaren has said extreme liberals are just fundamentalists with different beliefs. I tend to think he is right. As much as I don’t agree with the far right, neither do I think the far left has the answers.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:33 pm
@ lots of passion around these posts!
@ cool story about welcoming a “prodigal brother” to worship!
@ good thing about being libertarian= allowing others the space to live
@ good thing about social justice= seeking to structure life for the “common good” so that those easily left out are not forgotten, but cared for
@ one bad thing about political rhetoric today= we fail to see our weaknesses and the others’ strengths
@ “them” versus “us”- am I the only one who keeps hearing this tone in the church and in the world? How would things be different if we recognized we needed “them” and they
needed “us”?
@ zero sum= there are winners and there are losers; if I am right, then you must be wrong
@ non zero sum= we are either all winners or all losers together; if the boat is sinking and we’re both drilling, who is the winner?; if the boat is sinking and we’re all trying to care for the boat, who is the loser?
I believe that Christ calls us to “non zero sum”- when one suffers, all suffer together- when one rejoices, all rejoice together
If I become a Saint Francis groupie, will you all kick me out of the “Lutheran camp”
March 1st, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Thanks for the comments, everyone. And Tim, that’s for your reflections. That’s a good note to end on with these comments. I’m shutting the comments down on this post. Thanks, everyone!