Breaking Open the Conversation

Still behind in pretty much everything (school, life, blogging) but sticking this here for a wider audience.  I posted a link to this HuffPo article about the Kardashian debacle on my facebook page, and an old high school friend of mine commented, "Why rejoice in anyone's failed marriage?"

It was a fair question, and here is what I wrote in response (his name has been changed to protect the innocent):

John, I don't rejoice in anyone's failed marriage. I do lament what I see as a grave injustice, that someone who has such obvious disrespect for marriage is nevertheless legally allowed to keep making a mockery of marriage (and to make a crapload of money ON her mockery of it), while my LGBT brothers and sisters are (in most places) legally denied the ability to marry, and so must fight and scrape and go to great personal expense to pull together a very fragile system of support and protection and acknowledgment of their relationship. At its best this is still a fraction of the kind of support and protection and acknowledgment that Ms. Kardashian is granted by default. . .sacred relationship, support, protection, and acknowledgment which she has - twice now - casually thrown away.

I do not rejoice in the failure of her marriages. But I will rejoice if her continued mockery of marriage breaks open the conversation about what is just, and what respect for marriage truly looks like, and I will rejoice if breaking open that conversation ultimately helps secure justice, support, and protection for those who DO hold marriage sacred but are categorically denied participation in that gift.

Peace to you, brother. And thanks for pushing back with your question.

Arguments I Don't Hear Much Part 2

The gospel lesson this morning reminded me that I had not yet written this post. To refresh your brains, part 1 was the political argument. This part is the biblical/religious argument.

So, one of the major critiques often launched against "liberal" positions on homosexuality within the church is that those who hold such opinions are antinomian (aka anti-law). Because Leviticus and Romans and yadda yadda yadda all clearly state this is wrong, so if you want to say it's not wrong you clearly just want to torch the Bible and dance on its grave. Or (less dramatically, and perhaps more nerve-wracking) you're setting up your own arbitrary criteria for what we follow and what we don't, and (this is the real concern) where will it stop? If you're wiling to "pitch" some parts of the Bible, whats to stop you from pitching the whole thing?

This is a very "brick wall" mentality regarding the Bible - every "brick" (verse) has equal size, weight, and value, and is rock solid, not flexible at all - and the fear is if you punch out enough bricks you compromise the integrity and stability of the whole structure.

A lot of people have this understanding of the Bible. But it's not the only way to think about it. A contrasting image is that of a trampoline, and thinking of the verses as the springs that hold it together. You can take a few springs out of a trampoline and it will still function, but more importantly, springs have give, they are flexible.

(we interrupt this post to give props to Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis, because that's who I'm stealing these images from - if you haven't read this book yet, you should)

Now before anybody gets all "You're pulling springs out of the trampoline? That's antinomian!" on me, please let me clarify that I'm NOT pulling springs out of the trampoline, and I'm not advocating that anybody else should either. I AM advocating that we should all be thinking of Bible verses as more like springs and less like bricks.

And I advocate that in part because that's kind of what we'd been doing for centuries. The law has never been so black and white, so cut and dried, as some folks like to make it out to be. You'd think something like "Thou shalt not steal" would be, but there are volumes of rabbinic debates and commentary as to when this law is bound and when this law is loosed.

Let me explain: let's say you are walking along and you spot a $100 bill on the ground. If you pick it up, is that stealing? It depends, say the rabbis. If you just pick it up and put it in your pocket without making any effort to look around and seek out who may have dropped it, then the law is bound, and yes, you are stealing from your neighbor. But if you make every good faith effort to return the money to its rightful owner and cannot find them no matter how hard you try, then the law is loosed, you may keep the money and you are not breaking the commandment.

This is a broad generalization of the kinds of reflection and rabbinic debate that would happen all the time. In reality it would go much deeper and in greater detail, but hopefully with this small example you get the picture.

Jesus himself was steeped in this tradition. In fact, we see him engaging in it in Matthew 12 when the Pharisees come after him and the disciples for plucking grain (aka doing work) on the Sabbath, a clear violation of their cut and dried understanding of the third commandment, to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Jesus counters with arguments as to why the law in this case should be loosed, and like a good case lawyer, he even cites historical precedent (King David, no less).

(we interrupt this post once again to give props to Mark Allan Powell's How Lutherans Interpret the Bible, because that's who I'm stealing these examples from - if you haven't yet watched this DVD series, you should)

Ok, so what does all this have to do with arguments you don't hear much and the gospel from this morning?

Namely this: in this morning's gospel, Jesus gives the church the power to bind and to loose. My Catholic brothers and sisters interpret this passage as giving only Peter and Peter's successors (aka the Popes) this authority, but we Protestants interpret it more broadly as the body of Christ, the church, having this power.

And we've used it. Repeatedly. I love ham and pork and bacon, others love shrimp and lobster, and we all eat these things freely because collectively the body of Christ decided to loose the Levitical kosher laws. The laws (which are pretty clear cut) are still sitting there in the Bible, no one has thrown those springs out, no one is "against" them, but we have decided they've got give and they are no longer binding upon the community. Similarly, I am a woman who is ordained and regularly speaks in worship, because the part of the body of Christ that is the ELCA collectively decided to loose the "law" in the Pauline letters that forbids women from speaking in church (though I am cognizant that several other members of the body have declared this law is still bound).

To me, it makes logical sense to extend this power to bind and to loose the law to the passages forbidding homosexuality. And to me, that is essentially what certain members of the body (the ELCA among them) have done, declared collectively (if rather contentiously) that these laws are indeed loosed. They are still sitting there, right next to the kosher laws in some instances, we have not thrown them out, but we have decided they are no longer binding.

I don't think that's being antinomian. I also don't think it's such a bad argument. My question is: why do I feel like I'm the only one I ever hear making it? In all the debates I heard leading up to the Churchwide Assembly in 2009, in all the debates I heard on the floor of the 2009 CWA (I volunteered as a page), in all the continued fighting and controversy in the wake of those decisions (in which many who have been leaving have gifted us with parting jabs about abandoning the Bible), I don't recall hearing anybody make this case. And I can't help but wonder why.

This Little Pastor Went to Pride

So we raced through second service this morning, then raced to clean up afterwards, so we could book it over to the Pride Parade and march with our fellow Reconciling in Christ Lutheran congregations. Despite our hurry, we knew we wouldn't catch them at the top of the route, so we parked in the vicinity of Loring Park (the end of the route and the main location for the festival) and worked our way up Hennepin until we spotted our contingency and joined in with them.

I purposely wore a lavender cleric and a rainbow stole to march today, because given the damage a lot of clergy have done and continue to do to LGBT people, I thought it was important to reclaim those symbols as a supportive presence rather than a condemning one.

It was interesting, though, making our way through the park and the crowd along the parade route, I definitely got a lot of looks - some smiles and "right on" kinds of nods, some double-takes, some just kind of surprised and bewildered. I was initially surprised by their surprise, but then I had to remind myself "Duh, this why you wore what you wore today, because a lot of people in this crowd are not used to seeing clergy as allies, their surprise is a natural reaction."

I also had to remind myself that 90% of my LGBT friends are practicing Christians, so my "sample" (to put it in statistical terms, natch) is not at all representative of the population as a whole. My friends have said they often feel like a double minority, because being LBGT makes them minorities among the Christian community, and being Christian makes them a minority among the LGBT community. After my experience today I have a bit fuller appreciation for what they mean.

Anyway, when we finished the parade we stayed at the end to watch the others come through, and at one point these people with bright yellow shirts that said "Free Bibles" walked by pulling a dolly with boxes on it. One of the members of our group was like "Oh, that's a good idea, but I bet that's really heavy at the start of the parade."

To be honest, it looked like it was kind of heavy at the end of the parade and something about this group just didn't feel right in my gut so I said, "I don't know - that could go one of two ways - are they handing out Bibles to show people how they're filthy sinners, or are they handing them out to show people God's not a jerk? (I used a much stronger term than "jerk" but I'm trying to keep this post PG) Even with good intentions I'm not sure how well received that would be in this crowd."

And then when the parade was all over and we walked back through the park on the way to the car, we passed this group again, outside the park, with three teenagers holding a sign that asked "Who is Jesus?" and that just kind of confirmed my suspicions - they were there to tell people they were filthy sinners.

I think of all the looks I collected today, the looks from this group were my favorite, because they showed not only surprise, but also betrayal, like, "You're supposed to be one of US, what are you doing with THEM?"

I didn't think to say this until we were long past them, but if I had been more quick-witted I'd have told them "I'm with them because of my answer to your question: 'Who is Jesus?' He's the one who always stands with those on the other side of the line."

Behavior That *Should* Get One Removed From the Roster

There is a retired pastor in Central Pennsylvania who really hates gay people. I mean, REALLY. HATES. gay people.

. . .so much so, that he makes inappropriate and non-sequitor bestiality references when arguing against resolutions on the synod assembly floor.

. . .so much so, that for the past several years he has turned preaching supply gigs into a bully pulpit to rail against all things LGBT. This is why I never allowed the man into my pulpit. Technically, if we were looking for supply we were supposed to exhaust all ordained options first before moving on to synodically authorized lay worship leaders. Pretty much every time I was going to be away, this guy was the only ordained clergy on the list. I never called him. I wasn't going to do that to my people, I wasn't going to let him abuse the office of preaching like that, and I sure wasn't going to give him a platform.

. . .so much so, that a couple years ago he put out a blanket call to strategize about the upcoming churchwide assembly, scheduling this meeting for the day after Easter. As Andy said, "Man, you've really gotta hate gay people to call a meeting to talk about how much you hate gay people and plot their demise within the church the day after we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord."

His behavior is just obnoxious, all the more so because he has somehow managed to get his hands on the synod's mailing lists and continues to sporadically assault pastors and churches with undesired mailings and emails, extending "invitations" to join his cause (I just got another one today, hence the rant).

To me, his is the kind of behavior that's way more harmful and damaging to the people of God, to the Word of God, and to the institution of the church, than anything two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own room.

Some days I wonder why the church is so good at fretting over sins of a personal nature, yet so bad at calling out sins against community. . .

He Can't Stay Silent Anymore

In the wee hours of Friday morning, a bullied teen from western Snyder County, PA, left his home, walked over 10 miles in the dark to Hwy 11/15, waited by the side of the road for the next tractor-trailer to drive by, then jumped in front of it.

Andy is a pastor in western Snyder County. His sermon on Sunday was a response to this tragedy. He put the following comment up with his initial posting of the video to facebook:

OK here it is. It's hard to be an outspoken voice of moderation. This is a sermon to my congregations, with reference to our community tragedy this Friday. It should not be considered such a risky thing to do to proclaim God's love for gay teenagers, but I didn't have the guts until today.

He put additional comments up as he posted this to youtube:

In the wake of another teen suicide in our nation, this time in our community, it was time to finally say publicly what I have said privately many times: "God loves gay people too." This should not be so radical, but it is still eliciting resistance and hate. Due to the nature of many immature and anonymous youtube users, comments will be disabled. This video is on facebook already, but I hope that by using youtube, it may make its way to those who need to hear it. The voices of hate cannot be allowed to be the only voice heard, even and especially those who use the name of our Lord to justify it.

I have always been proud to call Andy my friend, but am especially proud of him for this particular witness to the Gospel. Preach it, brother.

It Gets Better

I love Bishop Hanson. Preach it, brother.

Mythbusting

Yesterday a friend's congregation voted to leave the ELCA over the sexuality issue. This friend is staying with the ELCA, which means their job and call is now over. Thankfully this friend already has another (at least temporary) call lined up for now, so they are not absolutely unemployed.

In a discussion of this on their facebook page, a classmate of theirs from seminary (someone I vaguely remember from my seminary days as well - this friend was a couple classes behind me) made a sort of snarky sounding comment about this being what happens when Church leadership pushes something forward, damn the consequences, and then criticizes people who are angry about it.

There was a lot I could say in response to this comment, but my biggest concern was to go after this myth that "liberal-agenda Church Leadership" was responsible for this, so I posted the following. I'm re-posting it here because in order to truly help take down the myth, this probably needs to be seen by more than just my friend's friends on facebook.

What I find so ironic about this is that the folks who are so angry about Churchwide Assembly decisions tend to fall on the literalist end of the spectrum when it comes to Biblical interpretation. And yet when it comes to the actual historical record of how this decision was made, they chuck facts out the window in favor of myths and conspiracy theories. I'm sure part of where they are getting that from is the Word Alone "Network News," which reads more like a Lutheran National Enquirer these days, but they send it to everybody whether you want it or not, and if people willingly read salacious trash, what can you do to stop them?

In any case, what I wrote is below. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. For non-Lutherans reading this, Higgins Road is where the ELCA's churchwide offices are located in Chicago - those who dislike the national church often use it as derogatory shorthand to refer to anyone or anything in the churchwide offices.




I am responding to Jasper's comment, and I apologize in advance if I come across tersely, but I am tired of hearing Churchwide Assembly decisions being blamed on "Church leadership so bent on making a change."

First of all, "Church leadership" did not make this decision, "the gay agenda" did not make this decision either - the regular old Lutherans (pastors and laity and bishops) who were sent to the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) on behalf of their synod are the ones who voted in favor of this change. And they didn't do it abruptly, they didn't do it in a vacuum, they did it after YEARS of of deliberate study and discussion of all aspects of the issue across the entire ELCA, they did it after DAYS of deliberate discussion and discernment (in both small and large group formats) within the CWA itself, and they did it in the context of prayerful discernment, as all decisions in the Assembly are handled.

Second, as a "consequence" of these decisions, no one is being asked to change their interpretation of Scripture or their understanding of homosexuality. No one is being asked to call a gay pastor, be they single or in a publicly accountable, monogamous, etc, partnership. What everyone IS being asked, and not by nameless, faceless, agenda-driven bureaucrats on Higgins Road, but by regular old Lutherans in congregations just like yours and mine, what we ARE being asked by these brothers and sisters in Christ, is to allow them to care pastorally for their own members in the manner they best see fit (regardless of their parishioners' orientations), and to allow them to call the pastor they believe the Holy Spirit is sending to them, regardless of that pastor's sexual orientation.

I'm not asking you to agree with CWA, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm not asking anyone to stay in the ELCA if their conscience binds them to leave over this issue. But stay or go, agree or disagree, I AM asking you to get the story straight (pun intended) when you talk about it with other people, especially those in your parish.

Peace,
C

Some Thoughts on Wagner's "Bridal March"

Background: About a year ago, a friend and fellow colleague asked "What's really the big deal about Wagner's Bridal March? Why do many congregations ban it from wedding services?"

I was recently reminded of this question again when reviewing my congregation's wedding policy, which discourages use of this song. I happen to like opera, and specifically Wagner's operas, so I decided to dig into this issue a little deeper, and sent the following around to the group of colleagues who had discussed this last year. One of them requested I post it on facebook so it can serve as a point of reference for others. I thought for good measure, I'd post it over here as well.

So, our wedding policy (which was written years before I came to this congregation) officially discourages use of this music, allegedly because the opera contains:

a) pagan themes

and

b) the bride dies after the wedding

As to criticism a - the opera is based on Germanic folklore, so it's "pagan" to the extent that folklore is. It also invokes God often - basically, think of a medieval mindset that believed in both God and magic - that's the blend you've got going on here.

As to criticism b - the last line in my libretto is a stage direction "Elsa slowly sinks lifeless to the ground in Godfrey's arms." She's sinking to the ground in despair because by her own tragic flaw (insisting on knowing her mysterious savior-figure husband's identity when she promised she wouldn't ask about it), she has made it that her husband (with whom she is very much in love) must go away forever (that's what makes for good opera - if you don't like it, take it up with those who make up the laws of magical German folklore!).

So - is she just passing out, overwrought with emotion at watching her husband sail away forever? Or is she dying of a self-induced broken heart? I suppose that's up to interpretation, but I guess I don't see this ending as a reason for banning the music - if anything, the "moral of the story" is a decent one - beware the consequences of breaking promises and insisting on your own way all the time in your marriage, as this will only alienate you from your beloved.

[Ironically, our wedding policy also discourages use of Mendelssohn's march from A Midsummer Night's Dream (for what I think are similarly ridiculous reasons), but it encourages use of some music titled "The Prince of Denmark's March" - now, maybe that was written for some later, actual prince of Denmark, but that title is pretty strongly associated in my mind with Hamlet, which is a WAY more messed up story (in which EVERYBODY dies) than either Lohengrin or A Midsummer Night's Dream. . .]

In any case, what we know as the "bridal march" is not actually the bridal march in the opera - there IS a bridal procession, and it's an absolutely gorgeous piece of music, but it's in Act 2. What we commonly refer to as the bridal march comes in the beginning of Act 3 - the overture to the third act is meant to depict the "brilliant bustle of the wedding feast" then the curtain opens to reveal the bridal chamber, and the chorus sings the following words to this all-too-familiar tune:

Guided by faith, enter within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour and the prize of love
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Champion of virtue, advance!
Flower of youth, advance!
Let the sound of revelry be shut out
and your heart's bliss be attained!
Now, removed from sight, take possession
of this perfumed chamber, decked for love.
Guided in faith, now enter within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour and pure love
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.

As God has given you His blessing
we too wish you happiness.
Long remember this hour
in the course of love's joy!

Guided in faith, stay within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour, love, and happiness
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.
Champion of virtue, here remain!
Flower of youth, here remain!
Leet the sound of revelry be shut out
and your heart's bliss be attained!
Now, removed from sight, take posession
of this perfumed chamber, decked for love.

Guided in faith, stay within,
where may the blessing of love attend you!
Victorious valour, love, and happiness
unite you in trust as a blessed pair.


Again, up to everyone's individual taste and interpretation of "appropriateness," but I don't see what's so bad about those words. In fact, I find it kind of a nice sentiment, having the blessing of God and your community, being guided by faith and united in trust as a blessed pair. Of course, since the scene is the bridal chamber and the song also references the heart's bliss being attained, it's also about SEX - which is where, I would presume, the real (if unacknowledged) criticism of this music lies. But, seeing how sex and sexuality is part and parcel of a healthy marriage, I don't see that as a reason to keep it out of a marriage service either.

So, there's my mini-thesis on Wagner's "bridal march" - do with it what you will. :)

Comments and further insight are most welcome.

Peace,
Catrina

Because It's Dangerous to Take Ourselves Too Seriously

Personally, I'm a Honda girl, so I'm holding out for a Book of Faith Fit.



This did get one thing wrong - Bruggemann's not a Lutheran. Martin Marty is our prolific writer.

And Dan, before you say anything about the previous sentence, you're on notice that I'm no longer taking crap from you for name-dropping - according to this, it's an inherited disorder! ;-)

In Christ He is My Brother. . .

I don't normally put my sermons on this blog, but this is one I feel compelled to share. I was away volunteering at the Churchwide Assembly, then on vacation, and last week we had an assistant to the bishop as our guest, so this past Sunday was my first time back in the pulpit and my first chance to address what happened in Minneapolis. Julia and John's story has been used by permission, though names have been changed and certain identifying details generalized to protect the innocent. May the Spirit give us all eyes to see and ears to hear and the strength to bear one another's burdens in love. . .

In Christ He is My Brother

Well, even though today is Rally Day, and even though we are blessing backpacks and briefcases, students and teachers, and the beginning of a new school year, and the lectionary has even conveniently given me some Scripture really appropriate for teachers, there in both Isaiah and James, this morning I’m going to do something I never do. I’m going to ignore the lectionary and preach a sermon that has nothing to do with anything else happening in today’s worship, but has everything to do with who we are and how we live together as the body of Christ. This is a sermon I feel the Holy Spirit gave to me while I was volunteering at the Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis 3 weeks ago, and I pray now the Holy Spirit will give all of you the ears to hear it.


I want to start by letting you know that going to the Churchwide Assembly was an incredible experience, and it made me very proud to be a Lutheran, because we are doing some amazing ministry – in our own backyards, across this nation, and throughout the world. The Churchwide Assembly is a chance to learn about and celebrate the ministry we are already doing, and to dedicate ourselves to new ministries that will meet the new needs and challenges arising in our midst. Among the many actions taken by the Churchwide Assembly were commitments to fund a global HIV/AIDS strategy, to both increase education and prevention efforts, and to provide resources to assist those already living with the disease; we also dedicated ourselves to developing a Lutheran Malaria Initiative, to help prevent and eradicate malaria, especially in Africa, by distributing mosquito nets, basically, bed tents, to be given to those who live and sleep in afflicted countries; we also committed ourselves to calling for long-overdue immigration reform in our own nation, and asked Augsburg Fortress, our publishing house, to develop worship and liturgical resources in Braille, to better include our sight-challenged brothers and sisters; and we voted to enter into full communion with our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church, an agreement that will help particularly rural or isolated congregations in both of our denominations to partner together in mission for Christ.


But my guess is that most of you haven’t heard a thing about any of these actions I just mentioned, because those are the things we are doing for the healing of the world. “Bo-ring” stuff as far as the media is concerned. What sells is sex and violence, so if you’ve heard anything about what happened in Minneapolis, I bet it’s about the decisions made regarding human sexuality, and the subsequent conflict, and potential schism within the church, as a result of those decisions.

In case you’ve been blissfully ignorant, and just so I know we are all on the same page, let me tell you what the assembly did decide. First, they approved, by the required 2/3 of the assembly, a social statement on human sexuality. This statement outlines what we as a church believe is healthy, helpful, and life-giving in relation to sexuality and sexual behavior, and it also outlines what we as a church believe is unhealthy, harmful, or life-taking in these matters. I would encourage all of you to read this statement for yourselves – you can either find it online, or, if you do not have access to the internet, call the church office and we would be happy to print you a copy.

The assembly also approved to allow congregations and pastors of the ELCA to provide pastoral care for their homosexual members as they best saw fit, acknowledging that such pastoral care may include the blessing of same-sex unions.

And the assembly also approved that congregations and synods be allowed to call whichever qualified candidate for ministry they believe the Holy Spirit is sending them, even if that candidate is a homosexual in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable partnership (or, to put it another way, if they are in a covenanted relationship like unto the marriage of their heterosexual peers).

These are the decisions that I’m guessing you have heard something about, though I imagine they were presented in a much more polarizing fashion than I’ve laid them out for you here.

My guess is that you also didn’t hear about the “boring” decision made in relationship to and in conjunction with all of these decisions about sexuality. That relatively boring, non-sexy decision that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministry policies, the ELCA commits itself to bear one another’s burdens, to love the neighbor, and to respect the bound conscience of all. I bet you didn’t hear that that decision overwhelmingly received the most support out of all the decisions that were made in regard to human sexuality. I bet you also didn’t hear that the assembly chose to move that decision up on their agenda so it would be considered first – and that 77% of the voting members, without yet knowing how the votes on the other considerations would play out – 77% of the people there said regardless of what happens, we are committed to each other. No matter how this turns out, we are committed to loving and caring for each other in the face of deep and often passionate disagreement; we are committed to respecting the conscience of not only those who share our opinions and scriptural understanding, but also and especially of those who do not share our opinions and scriptural understanding; we are committed to bearing one another’s burdens – that is, to bearing both one another’s relief and one another’s dismay. Because no matter how those votes turned out, my friends, whether those policies were approved or denied, it was certain a great many people in this church were going to rejoice and a great many people in this church were going to lament.


I don’t know if you realize it, friends, but this is probably the most earth-shattering decision that was made in Minneapolis – in the midst of a culture that constantly tries to polarize us, whether the camps we are being broken down into are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, mainline or evangelical, city or country, East or West, North or South, Pepsi drinkers or Coke drinkers, Steelers fans or Eagles fans – in a culture that is constantly trying to divvy us up and tells us repeatedly that we should only associate with like-minded people, for this church to stand up and say “No – we are committed to loving and respecting and bearing both the joy and the pain of one another, even in the midst of our disagreement” – that is a profound witness to what God has done and is doing even now in Christ.


And I have no doubt in my mind that the Holy Spirit is running loose in this church, as I saw this witness to Christ’s unity emerge over and over again that week in Minneapolis.

One of the speakers who came to the floor during the assembly was a middle-aged pastor who told a story from his internship 20 years earlier, when he was visiting a woman who was dying. Death has a tendency to make people awfully reflective, and in this case, it was not merely the woman but also her husband who was thinking back over his life, both joys and regrets. The husband was wrestling with a lot of guilt – you see, he had been an American bombardier during WWII, and had been involved in the carpet-bombing of Berlin. He was certain his actions had been directly responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, and he couldn’t forgive himself for that, and he wasn’t sure God could forgive him for it either.

Later in that very same week, this young student pastor was visiting another woman in the congregation, and in the course of conversation, discovered that she was a German immigrant, and had been a child in Berlin during the war. She herself had survived, but she had held her sister in her arms as the sister died from injuries sustained during the carpet-bombing.
In youthful ignorance, the student pastor blurted out “Do you know about the history of this man in the congregation? He could very well be the one who dropped the bomb that killed your sister! How can you go to church with this man?! How can you stand at the communion rail with him?!”

And the woman looked the student pastor right in the eye and said, “In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?”


In the midst of the sexuality discussions, another pastor got up to speak –white, male, about my age - he’s a friend of a friend, actually, so I also happen to know he is straight and married. He was speaking at a green microphone, which meant that he spoke in favor of the recommendations before the floor. But the first words out of his mouth were: “Is anybody else scared to death to be speaking at a microphone? I’m shaking here. . .please pray for me while I do this.”

And then we all watched as the man standing next to him at the red microphone reached out and put his hand on this pastor’s shoulder, bowed his head, and prayed for him for the duration of his speech, even as he was speaking an opposing point of view.

In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?


My friend Julia is a pastor in Minnesota, she was a volunteer coordinator for the Churchwide Assembly, she’s the one who recruited me to come and help out for the week. Her college friend John was not a seminary classmate of ours but he is also a pastor, in the South, he was also there for the week, not as a volunteer but as a voting member for his synod. John and Julia’s families are very close, close enough that Julia and her husband Jay chose John to be godfather to their daughter Judy. But, John and Julia’s families are also diametrically opposed in their scriptural understanding and their opinions on these matters of sexuality.

During the assembly, John became a recognizable face of opposition as he spoke several times at the red microphones. Throughout the assembly, as decisions were made that were pleasing to Julia but disappointing to John, she kept seeking him out to see how he was doing and to be a good friend and support him as he struggled with what was happening.

At one point late in the week, Julia was in the volunteer break room watching the proceedings on a closed-circuit TV, and one of our classmates from seminary, a woman named Jane, came into the room right as John was again speaking from a red microphone. Julia told Jane “That’s Judy’s godfather.” To which Jane replied, “Oh. . .huh. . .well, don’t you think you ought to be distancing your daughter from him?”

And Julia was so dumbfounded by the suggestion that she didn’t even know what to say. They had known of this disagreement between them long before Judy was born, and that had not prevented Julia and Jay from choosing John as Judy’s godfather, nor had it prevented John from joyfully accepting this role in Judy’s life. So why on earth, Julia wanted to ask, would the events of this week alter that relationship in any way?

Which is not to say that their relationship is always easy – John and Julia both would be the first to tell you that some days it’s very hard to not let this difference interfere with their friendship. But they both work at it, and they both bear with one another in love.

Maybe in the shock-induced absence of anything else to say, Julia should have simply looked Jane in the eye and said “In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?”


Certainly, there are those within this church – on both sides of this issue, because I hear it coming from both those who are deeply pleased and from those who are deeply disappointed by the decisions made in Minneapolis – but I hear all kinds of people in this church who think the only way forward from here is to separate and distance ourselves from those with whom we disagree.

And if that is where you are at, if your conscience binds you to distance yourself in any way from this body of Christ, I want you to know I will respect that, and I will respect you, and I will continue to love you and to bear the burden of these decisions with you, because in Christ YOU ARE my brothers and sisters, and I can hold nothing against you.

But I also must confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that the will to separate is not where I am at. A church which sorts itself out into only like-minded people is not the church that I want to belong to, and it’s not the church that I feel called to serve, because I believe we need each other: black and white, male and female, gay and straight, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, Protestant and Catholic, mainline and evangelical, city and country, East and West, North and South, Pepsi drinkers and Coke drinkers, Steelers fans and Eagles fans. . .in God’s kingdom, I believe there is room AND there is need FOR ALL.

So the church that is committed to holding together and living together in spite of our disagreements, the church that communes with and prays for even those we may consider our enemies, the church that John and Julia work every day to embody - that’s the church I want to belong to. . .that’s the church I believe God is calling us to be. . .that’s the church I believe Jesus is even now creating in our midst.

THANKS BE TO GOD.

Amen.

A Time for Burning

I just watched this most excellent documentary from the mid-1960s, which follows attempts by some churches in Omaha to promote inter-racial dialogue and understanding between fellow Christians during the heart of the Civil Rights movement. This is cinema verite at its finest, the people in the film spoke very candidly and cut right to the heart of the issue in many of their conversations.

The deeply saddening thing about watching this film is to realize how relevant the film, and the issues raised in the conversations it documents, still is today, over 40 years later (just last week a black ministerium colleague new to the area went to the farmer's market and was immediately accosted by a white person who asked them "You don't think you really belong here, do you?"). So much more dialogue and awakenings that are so needful but have yet to occur, so much more understanding yet to be gained by everyone. . .

The fascinating thing about watching this film is to realize that if you only substitute the words "gay and lesbian" for "colored" or "negro," the conversations between the white church members and pastors are the exact same conversations we're having today on the issue of sexuality. Seriously, I have heard, almost word-for-word, precisely the same hopes and fears given voice in the ELCA over the past few years.

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

But if you get the chance, watch this documentary. Better yet, watch it with a group of people and then talk about it afterward. You won't regret it.

Synod Assembly Part Deux

At long last I have time to recap Day Two of Synod Assembly, when we got down to the brass tacks of legislative action.

We had two memorials before us on the sexuality issue. For those unaccustomed to ELCA polity and related lingo - a memorial is a message that we as a synod send to the churchwide assembly, usually advising them to do or not do something in particular.

The churchwide assembly is not bound by these memorials- they can choose to pay attention to them or to ignore them. Often, a memorial can be the thing that gets a ball rolling for the national church - in fact, I believe we are currently at the place we are at in these conversations on sexuality because several years ago, a synod (or perhaps several synods) memorialized the churchwide assembly to generate a social statement on sexuality, and the assembly agreed that would be a good thing to do. Similarly, the Book of Faith initiative is also the result of a synod memorializing the churchwide assembly to "increase Biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world," and the churchwide assembly decided that this, too, would be a good thing to do.

The memorials before us were not so much to get a new initiative going, they were more of a weighing in with our opinion on controversial matters currently before the church. One memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to adapt their rules for adoption, so that passage of both the social statement and the recommendations on rostering policies require a "supermajority" (2/3 of the assembly), as opposed to a regular majority (51% - the current standard). The other memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to reject: the sexuality statement, the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church." Additionally, this memorial encouraged the churchwide assembly to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade).

I missed the discussion and vote on the supermajority memorial, and the beginning of the debate on the other memorial, as did a number of other folks, because we were getting ready for worship. We were installing authorized lay leaders in the service, and the new lay leaders and their mentors (of which I was one) were instructed to be vested by 9:30 am; the choir (of which I was also one) was also instructed to be downstairs to warm up by 9:30. This meant that probably 20-30 voting members were not on the floor of the assembly when these discussions began, and had no inkling of what we were missing. When I left the floor to vest they were in the middle of somebody's report, I did not anticipate them getting to legislative matters at all before worship, in part because they had been so careful the day before about not dismissing the elections committee to count ballots during the "quasi-committee of the whole," so that elections committee members could participate in the discussion.

I don't believe it was a sneaky political ploy, just an unfortunate miscommunication (the Bishop was honestly shocked in the afternoon plenary when he saw how many hands went up asking for the paper ballot we weren't given in the morning session) - but it was still unacceptable, and believe me, the synod office will be hearing from me about it so that they don't fall into the same situation in the future.

All of which is to say, again - I missed all the initial discussion (which from reports, started to get a little nasty on memorial #2), and the vote on the supermajority memorial (which was approved).

When we picked the matter back up in the afternoon, a colleague submitted a substitutionary memorial, that was not really a friendly substitution to the original memorial at all - the whereases were much more focused on lifting up the gifts of ALL members of the church and finding a way for ALL to serve, and the resolveds were to accept the social statement but reject any rostering policy changes for now, while continuing the discussion to find ways for our homosexual brothers and sisters to serve as rostered leaders of the church, and equipping and encouraging them as strong lay leaders in the meantime.

More debate and discussion ensued. The tenor of the discussion was less civil on this day, especially from those who favored the original memorial (one colleague kept trying to turn the discussion into more of a point-counterpoint debate and was very contemptuous of any argument he disagreed with; another resorted to the old "you're abandoning the Bible" ad hominum, then jumped from the matter at hand into a non sequitur about bestiality - I think in a lot of people's minds, they basically discredited themselves by their rhetoric and their tactics).

Ultimately, we voted to substitute the new memorial for the original, and then voted the new memorial down (85 in favor; 136 opposed), I'm sure because it had enough in it for everyone to hate: both those who wanted to reject the social statement and those who wanted to accept the policy recommendations weren't going to vote for it.

So in the end, we haven't sent any word of advice on to the churchwide assembly on this matter (other than recommending passage by a supermajority), which I think is actually a good thing. Because we believe (or at least, we claim to believe) that the Holy Spirit is at work in the workings of the assembly, thus we ought to trust the Spirit to do its thing, just as we ought to trust those elected to the churchwide assembly to be prayerful people with discerning hearts and minds in this and all other matters before the church. Maybe it's time our words and actions (my own included) reflected more faith in that belief.

Peace,
C.

Sex and the Synod Assembly

Well, this weekend it is Upper Susquehanna's turn to wrestle with the weighty matters before the church.

Bishop Driesen spent a good amount of his report on the issue of the sexuality statement and accompanying policy recommendations. He shared his perspective, which he has been transparent about since the report's release - he does not favor a change in policy at this time, both because of his interpretation of the Scriptures, and even moreso, because he fears the ramifications of condoning a plurality of practice across the ELCA. Though he made his convictions clear, he was also very clear about the fact that he does not believe those who hold opposing convictions are any less faithful or any less grounded in Scripture. He was also clear that he did not make his statement in order to distance himself from those who may disagree, and there would be no judgement or differing treatment on his part toward any who speak from an opposing point of view, and that he hoped we could continue with respectful dialogue and discernment.

Though, as I said, the Bishop has been transparent about his perspective and concerns since the statement and report's release , I was initially kind of upset that he "weighed in" in this way during his own report, because I thought it may unduly sway the voting members of the assembly. A large part of that is maybe a difference in our leadership styles - in council meetings and annual meetings, I try to hold back from commenting right away, precisely because people grant so much authority to what I have to say, and I want them to think things through for themselves and have true ownership in the decision, not just do something or not do something because I say so. The Bishop seems to prefer more hierarchical systems and claims his authority more quickly than I - not in a power hungry kind of way, but humbly, and with an awesome sense of responsibility to steward the authority which his office grants him. I can understand and respect that, even though I choose to lead in a different way. I can also understand and respect his concerns about the plurality of practice, even though I don't share them.

But I digress. I was less upset after talking to Andy about the report, because he pointed out that what it did more than anything was set the tone for the discussions yet to come, and it disarmed the mudslinging, ad hominum attacks, and vitriolic rhetoric (especially the "you're abandoning the Bible" arguments) into which these debates are prone to devolve.

At the next plenary, we voted to form a "quasi-committee of the whole" - which was a brilliant parliamentary move that gave us a block of time to actually talk about the issue without a legislative vote on the line, so that no one could prematurely end the discussion by calling the question. While we were not exactly talking with each other, we were at least not merely talking at each other, or stuck in a point-counterpoint debate. From what I can remember, 19 people spoke (including yours truly) - there may have been more, but when I got home and thought back to who went to the mics: 14 spoke in favor of the statement and/or policy recommendations (10 clergy, 4 laypeople); 3 spoke against (all clergy); 1 colleague I'm not sure about - I thought he began by saying he was against, but then the content of what he said sounded to me like he was for, and I'm not sure which part of his speech I misunderstood; 1 person spoke neither for nor against, but only to the point they believe the Churchwide Assembly needs to pass this by a "supermajority" (2/3 instead of 51%).

A few of the usual suspects who are reliably outspoken on this issue (on both sides) were conspicuously silent today. I don't know if the Bishop's report truly disarmed what they had to say, or if they are waiting until tomorrow's debate on the resolution. Mal sehen.

In any case, at the end of the quasi-committee of the whole, we then took a series of non-binding votes to get a sense of the assembly. The votes were as follows:

On the question of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

In favor: 100
Undecided: 58
Opposed: 107

On the question of the implementing resolutions (if the social statement is adopted, the action plan for how it will be implemented into the life of the church)

In favor: 126
Undecided: 53
Opposed: 86

We took each of the four resolutions of the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies in order.

On Resolution 1, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.

In favor: 116
Undecided: 37
Opposed: 113

On Resolution 2, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.

In favor: 113
Undecided: 39
Opposed: 117

On Resolution 3, that, in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound conscience of all.

In favor: 137
Undecided: 28
Opposed: 83

On Resolution 4, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America call upon its members to commit themselves to respect the bound consciences of those with whom they disagree regarding decisions on the call and rostering of individuals in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, in this church and with churches ecumenically and globally, and that this church, because of its commitment to respect the bound consciences of all, declare its intent to allow structured flexibility in the decision-making process regarding the approving or disapproving in candidacy and the extending or not extending of a call. . .(etc - it's long, read the whole thing on the link)

In favor: 114
Undecided: 45
Opposed: 113


Three things stand out to me about these nonbinding votes:

First, even here in this fairly conservative, traditional family values area of the country, we are closely divided on this matter.

Second, though as a whole we're not quite sure we're ready for them in our pulpit, it seems as a whole we are slightly open to the idea of acknowledging some sort of life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship between two people of the same gender. I'm frankly surprised that window has emerged here, and even though it's only open the tiniest little bit, it's a place to start, and from the perspective of justice, not a bad one.

Third, more than anything we seem to be longing for a way to respect one another and live together in spite of our deep differences (at least, that's my read on resolution 3's vote) - and that's a good thing.

So, that was how things went today. Tomorrow we will have another discussion/debate on a resolution asking us to reject the social statement, and the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church," and to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade). I know - that's a heck of a lot to pack into one little resolution. And given how close the non-binding votes were today, I think it could honestly go either way. Mal sehen.

Whichever way it goes, I think we need to do a division of the house so that the Churchwide Assembly can see how narrow of a margin decided the issue.

Alright, I'm tired and I've got another long day tomorrow. If you're still with me, thanks for tuning in.

Peace,
C.

Facing the Elephant

Even though we ELCA Lutherans have been intentionally engaging one another in conversations about human sexuality lo these last seven or eight years, in a lot of ways, in a lot of congregations, it's still the giant elephant in the room that many are trying to ignore and are hoping against hope will just go away on its own.

This year we are finally, fully facing the elephant. Today the ELCA released the final draft of the sexuality statment, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, which is to be voted upon at the churchwide assembly this coming August. They also released the policy recommendations of the Task Force that has been working this statement and all the study leading up to it. For the curious, you can find links to download both of them here.

I only had time to skim part of the policy recommendations today, but my initial thoughts are that they are a) very Lutheran, and b) the best possible recommendations for us to move forward as a church lacking consensus on this matter. More detailed thoughts on this and the statement itself yet to come, as I have time to read and process it more thoroughly (why do they keep releasing this stuff right before a major holy day???), but for now, I send you to the ever thoughtful reflections of my friend Choral Girl.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Everyone on the planet needs to read my friend Choral Girl's thoughtful reflections on the matter. But especially, everyone in the ELCA.

Let's Talk About S-x, Baby

Well, the ELCA's draft statement on sexuality was finally released today. In the interest of full disclosure, I have not read it all - I'm going to print it out at work tomorrow so I can mark it up as I go through it. But I did read about the last 15 pages of it (atypically jumped to the end and worked my way backwards).

So, these are some initial reactions based on what I have read so far:

I have to say, I'm surprised by how strongly the statement condemns cohabitation, as well as how strongly I reacted to that condemnation.

First, a semantic issue - that section's heading says it will address sexual relations outside of marriage, but then uses the word cohabitation throughout the rest of that segment, as though the two were interchangable. While it may be true that many who are cohabiting are also sleeping together, it's not true of everybody - yet everybody who lives together outside of marriage is condemned, the way I read this statement.

Second, a justice issue - in the section on marriage, the statement clearly affirms the traditional definition of marriage to be a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. Thus, such strong condemnation of cohabitation seems to me like a back-door way of condemning homosexual relationships (which would, by the definitions laid out in the document, merely be cohabiting).

Third, an outreach issue - we keep saying we want to reach out to the young adults who are noticiably absent in our congregations. The hard facts on the ground tell us that many of these young adults have, are, or will live together outside the bonds of holy matrimony. So, what, are we reaching out only to slap them in the face? That's a great invitation.

Fourth, a personal issue - as the child of a broken marriage and a very nasty, protracted divorce, I understand the impulse to "test the waters," the desire to live with someone for a while before you commit yourself to them for life, I understand the logic that says it's better to make a short-term mistake than a lifelong one. I think a lot of young adults carry some similar emtional baggage, and that is part of what is driving the trend in cohabitation. So, given that I share in my generation's "issues" and attitudes toward marriage, given that, were it not for being a pastor, I myself might insist on a trial period of cohabitation before tying the knot (and fully believe it is possible to do so chastely) - how can I cast this stone? I can't. Not without being a huge hypocrite.

So those are my biggest critiques thus far. In fairness, I'm sure the conservatives in the church are also going to gripe that the document is a tacit acceptance of homosexual relationships, since it affirms that the church is called to minister to all of God's children, and one possible way of ministry "will call our same-gender-oriented brothers and sisters in Christ to establish relationships that are chaste, mutual, monogamous, and life-long. These relationships are to be held to the same rigorous standards and sexual ethics as all others."

So, once again it seems we've managed to come up with a document that includes a little bit of something for everybody to hate! I'll be curious to see how the debates unfold.

I also had to laugh out loud at the section that affirmed singleness, particularly the part that said "It [the church] recognizes
that unmarried members, single or otherwise, have distinctive forms of commitment to and reliance upon friends,
family members, coworkers, and the fellowship of Christ." Yeah, that's why the ELCA keeps sending its young single pastors to live in isolation, often in rural areas, though sometimes, pardoxically, in the midst of major cities, but in both cases, far from the family and friends to whom they are committed and upon whom they so distinctly rely (and I say that as one of the lucky ones who landed 20 minutes away from her best friend - my outrage is on behalf of my not-so-lucky friends and colleagues who bravely continue to serve God and create a life out of a rather lonely existence with virtually no thanks to or help from the wider church).

So, I'm sure I'll have more to say once I've actually read through the whole document, start to finish. But I'm curious to hear other reactions, especially from you fellow Lutherans. Leave a comment here, write on your own blog, send me an e-mail, but consider yourself tagged.

Peace,
Catrina

PS - In the good news department, the sunglasses have been found, they fell out of my pocket at the Stone's house. They are now safely back at my house, where they patiently await my next attempt to lose them.