When my wife and I moved from Upsala to Northfield in November, 2008, we left many church friends behind, not merely in our ELCA congregation in Upsala, but across the Northeast Synod of Minnesota where we had been active in many ways. We had frequently attended synod assemblies, which alternated between Duluth and Cragun’s resort near Brainerd, and Lynn served as WELCA synod president, board member, and parliamentarian for annual assemblies.
In Northfield, as members of Bethel Lutheran, we are now part of the Southeastern Minnesota synod of the ELCA, and we are learning our way around. I have attended several conference and synod gatherings, and Lynn and I will be voting members at this spring’s 2010 synod assembly.
So, it was with great interest and pleasant surprise when a news release crossed my desk from Lutherans Concerned North America (LCNA) which praised our new synod for its recently adopted statement of affirmation and inclusion. Turns out that the 2009 synod assembly voted to become a Reconciling in Christ (RIC) synod and to appoint a task force to craft an LGBT friendly welcoming statement. Our synod becomes the 24th synod of the ELCA to officially become RIC (out of a total of 65 synods nationwide). In a nutshell, the RIC movement is for synods, congregations, and individuals to become overtly gay friendly and welcoming.
The single element that is central to the program is the Affirmation of Welcome. It is simple, yet powerful in its witness … Making the Affirmation promotes a publicly inclusive ministry and helps heal the pain of doubt.
Here is the full statement of the SE Mn synod:
Affirmation of Welcome
Baptized into the waters of Christ and raised to new life by the strong word of God, fed and nourished by the body and blood of Christ, the people of God in the Southeastern Minnesota Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided in the 2009 assembly to be a Reconciling in Christ Synod. This synod, called by the Holy Spirit, is kept in unity with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. We are freely forgiven in Christ and we are in full service to one another. Whenever we meet in worship, prayer, deliberation and decision, as a large and diverse body of Christians, we recognize various ministries to ensure all people are welcomed into a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. As baptized believers created in the image of God – including, but not limited to, people of every race, nationality, age, political affiliation, marital status, gender identity, economic or social status, sexual orientation, mental and physical abilities – our synod welcomes all people of all backgrounds to become Christ’s devoted disciples.
I find the synod statement curiously strange and oddly conflicting. It confuses the notion of being made in the image of God with that of our fallen, sinful nature. This corrupted body, one which will one day return to dust, and a fallen spirit, which chases after its own desires and not God’s, needs God’s transforming power and grace in order to be made right in the end. If we are fine just the way we are, then we don’t need Jesus, do we? In attempting to be a church of tolerance, we become the intolerant church we are trying to avoid. In trying to be a church of acceptance, we leave people in the depths of sin and despair rather than helping or leading them to a transforming Gospel that ends in eternal hope, joy, and peace with God. The notion of being freely forgiven – forgiven from what? There is no notion of sin in this statement, only cheap grace that asks nothing, expects nothing, and does nothing. Pretty worthless, unless you are promoting the usual revisionist, humanist agenda. A sad day for the Southeastern Minnesota Synod. Not to mention they got the cart ahead of the horse – passing the RIC first, THEN making a statement. It was supposed to go the other way around. Sorry folks! But that is the same for the ELCA’s new policy – gay partners – or marriage? We’re basically saying to heterosexual pastors they can’t live with their boy/girlfriend, but a gay folks can – with no legal (secular) record of the union.
Dan Baker
First Lutheran Church
Albert Lea MN
“In trying to be a church of acceptance, we leave people in the depths of sin and despair rather than helping or leading them to a transforming Gospel that ends in eternal hope, joy, and peace with God.” You make it sound like we (the church) do the saving and not our Jesus Christ. The problem is, churches that follow this mind set reject people and drive them away. This past Sunday at Recovery Worship a man stood up and told of going to his home congregation while visiting his mother. He has been sober for 20 years, but people still treated him as Joe the drunk, not Joe their brother in Christ. By being a church of acceptance we bring people into the presance of Jesus Christ and then allow the Holy Spirit to do Her work, it is only through the Holy Spirit that we can believe.
@Dan Baker
Rules. Rules. Rules. You even criticize the synod for failing to follow the correct order of the RIC rules. Cart before the horse, you say. Judgment first, then forgiveness. Obey first, then acceptance. Law first, then gospel. Cart before the horse, indeed.
Ray is absolutely right, such churches “reject people and drive them away.” I am so pleased to part of a synod and a denomination that has chosen the path of open and affirming instead of your preferred course of closed and condemning.
We are all broken and need words of hope, joy, and peace, as you suggest. What we don’t need are gatekeepers to add to the depths of despair of those who would enter. How many openly gay folk in your congregation, Pastor Dan? If I was gay, which I’m not, I would swiftly run from your door. If I was a sinner, which I am, I would run from your gatekeepers just as fast. Too many saints behind those gates and not enough sinners. A sinner like me just wouldn’t feel welcome.
One book I was reading lately suggested that Adam was made in the image of God but he was the only man who was. The author may be right considering how we judge our fellow man.
The problem with the “Gatekeeper” mentality is that they say it isn’t about welcoming openly homosexuals, and others, but about the sin. Ok, will you welcome the homosexual and allow them to serve communion, take home communion visits to the sick, serve as congregational president and other leadership positions in the church? If you say no then you are not welcoming them into your congregation. Please don’t give me that “unrepentant sin” stuff either; we all fall into that category. Being a welcoming church means just that, being welcoming without the invisible footnote that says “as long as you are one of us.”
Dan, I’m not surprised by your statements. This is exactly why I cannot embrace the Word Alone movement. It puts far too many asterisks on grace.
One of the most powerful elements of ELCA liturgy is the rite of Holy Baptism
Child of God, you have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and marked with the Cross of Christ forver.
Period. End of discussion.
We are not old school Calvinists that embrace predestination. There is no such thing unrepentant sin for which there is no chance of grace.
The rite of Baptism does not a contract that includes any double top secret caveats that nullify the agreement. It is not:
Child of God, you have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and marked with the Cross of Christ forver.*
*unless you are gay, embrace the science of evolution, skip church from time to time, don’t tithe at the minimum biblical amount of 10%, date a catholic, have too much to drink on New Years Eve, are prochoice, disagree with your pastor, don’t read the Bible daily, take the Lord’s name in vain, covet your neighbor’s boat, argue with your mother, dislike the color orange, or color out side the lines with one of the four approved crayons.
Yes, I am getting a wee bit hyperbolic. But when you start adding caveats to grace, you might as well add the color orange clause, because these caveats are man made.
When you start adding caveats, you diminish the power and grace of Baptism. We are not Catholics, there is no purgatory for the almost just or the kind of condemned.
Baptism is not a contract that can be violated. It is a gift from God himself (btw, Obie, I love your use of pronouns for the Holy Spirit. I’m one that likes to consider God as something that transcends genders. You made me smile this morning)that promises no matter what our lot in life, we are his children, that all are welcomed and love, that there are no favorites in a divine parent’s eyes, and that we are all one in Christ.
That is what I love about the ELCA. A faith tradition where all are welcomed regardless of background. I read that statement at the ELCA website a few months back.
That is what grace is all about. The front doors of a church shouldn’t be the gate that lets the just in and the sinners out. That isn’t a “cheap grace.”
It is a door that opens so that we may find God.
I spoke too soon, it was Ray, not Obie who made me smile with his use of pronouns.
Anyhow, I applaud the South East Minnesota Synod for its committment to tolerance and grace.
Hi Kelly, I am glad I made you smile, we need more smiles today don’t we. Thank you for your post, you nailed it! By the way, my Greek teacher at seminary told me the Greek word for Spirit is feminine (I am sure some may argue this point); hence I like to use She. As a pastor in a recovering community, with so many abused women, opening ourselves up to the various imagery of God is important.
The reality is we all have rules. And we all believe in rules, theological or otherwise. The only question is which ones we choose to follow or not.
This argument gets us locked into the same old patterns, I would like to suggest a different way. How about we try to love everyone, even if we disagree.
Loving each other does not depend on agreeing. We disagree about many things. What I find very odd in the current schism which is much deeper in the ELCA than the leadership acknowledges is that if you disagree with the decisions in 2009 at CWA you must be a hateful bigot. The reality is MOST (not all) who disagree are not bigoted, or hateful. They simply disagree in redefining marriage and redefining 2000 years of scriptural understanding.
I think Pastor Dan brings up an interesting point, but I don’t agree with the harsh way it is stated. We seem to now have two sets of rules in the ELCA for clergy, one for straight clergy and one for gay.
There is “zero tolerance” for clergy affairs among straight pastors, as there should be (that phrase is from Bishop Hanson himself) ; on the other hand, it does seem there are nebulous boundries for gays. What is a “lifelong relationship? If it breaks up, is there removal from roster or suggested counseling, as with straights?
I find we are making up rules as we go along on this issue. The role of what is sinful, what is proper, and the role of clergy does have to be defined. The problem is that is simply saying we “accept all”, we have not delineated that since the ELCA begain we have never “accepted all” for the clergy.
Being a pastor is not a right. It comes with conditions, through seeminary the professional preparations, and much more. So what are the rules? And what do we follow or ignore?
Jeff,
You have a pretty ahistorical understanding of marriage. My relationship looks different than my parents’, which looks different than my grandparents’, and so on. The definition of marriage has changed a great deal over time. It has only been within the last several generations that “companionate marriage” based on mutual love, affection, and compatibility, has been a widespread ideal.
And that’s just in the United States, and that’s not even taking the obvious differences between polygamous and monogamous marriages into account. Object to same-sex marriage all you want – but marriage has not been the same across societies and across history. Our understandings and expectations of marriage have changed drastically over time and continue to change.
It seems to me that you and Dan would like to put gay pastors into a ridiculous predicament. Yes, of course, I expect that many gay pastors will not be married in the eyes of secular authorities – the two of you, among others, would strenuously object to legal same-sex marriages in this country. And many CORE/NALC/LCMC adherents are stirring up dissent in ELCA churches by falsely claiming that they will be forced against their will to perform same-sex unions in their churches. How about we wait to see what types of “conditions” the ELCA establishes for partnered gay clergy before we wildly speculate?
You seem to be suggesting that the ELCA will be enabling gay clergy to take part in some sort of sexual free-for-all – surely not the case, and probably more illustrative of a fairly common prejudice against gay and lesbian people, which you loudly and constantly claim you don’t have, than you think.
Ah, yes, the Catch 22 argument.
Unfortunately, this was the game plan where I worship. Get the congregation terrified and angry, then move to have the first vote.
*sigh*
Yes, rules rule. If we were Orthodox Jews we might have to have two sinks in the kitchen etc. I was a 70’s Jesus Freak Charismatic. I am still a closet Charismatic and I don’t plan to “come out” anytime soon. Why ? Rules . When one went to Jesus Freak things with people from other denominations or even with Lutherans all of a sudden everything in the Bible had to be taken literally. The Lutheran Charismatics started to be very literal and some even started their own church body. I do believe strongly in the Holy Spirit no matter what gender IT is. What does this have to do with the present situation ? I suspect that some of it is related. Yes, we do have to screen people if we are getting blood transfusions. It is a good idea to have disposable communion glasses. We do have to look out for both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles. But unless they are flaunting their sexuality, we aren’t going to know. My ex son in law passes for a woman very well. Do I condone her life style ? No. But I have had to learn to leave some things to God’s judgement. I can’t be the one to throw the first stone. If you don’t see the lesbian clergy woman with her partner kissing in the parking lot– is the average church member going to know ?
@Obie Holmen
Thanks for the comments, OBIE! If you don’t like rules, then don’t follow them! Then we should make rules forcing anyone to accept anyone else, either. Of course we have rules, gates, etc. I doubt you hate rules, either, just that you don’t like the rules others have set up. I don’t like some other people’s rules or laws.
Ray’s comments about people judging are pretty normal,d on’t you think? I talked to a drunk a while ago who went in to the hospital for a .36 BAC. He committed an unforgiveable sin (in the eyes of the community) years ago and they’ve succeeded in shunning him and ruining his life. What’s new? Of course people treat him differntly. Don’t lie and say you wouldn’t. But we don’t need to condone the person’s behavior – past or present? We are called to forgive, but we cannot always forget. I don’t think we can force people to forget, or even treat them like nothing happened. That is just as sick.
If rules are so bad, then why do we need more rules to oppose racism? to end segregation? to redistribute wealth? to force insurance companies to cover people? to drive 55 miles an hour? Rules rules rules. You hate rules, by you too love them!
dan
Ann,
You make my argument for me. You state clearly it is only in the United States that these different understandings have arisen. For most of Christianity, and most of the world, the concept of marriage in Genesis and Matthew still are the norm.
Please share with me in the bible where polygamy is condoned. Sure, many of the kings had multiple wives, but scripture teaches monogamy, and Jesus only taught monogamy between one man and one woman.
And please don’t assume I would be against legal civil unions. I am not. I happen to believe civil unions fit nicely in Luther’s two kingdoms concepts. But to ask the church to redefine marriage on the basis of 4% or less of the population is not what we are about.
Your understanding of Christian marriage is ahistorical. And what exactly has changed from your grandparents marriage to yours? Certainly, some roles might have changed, but the basic concept of promises before God and lifelong commitment have not changed.
There are two kingdoms. We don’t need to redefine one in order to satisfy the demands of another.
Kelly, point taken. I have no problem with civil unions.
What you call caveats are for some the understanding of scripture, which the ELCA still states is it’s “authoritative source for faith and life”.
There can be lifelong commitment between same sex partners. But one can legally give options for that and not redefine but what was given to us in scripture as marriage. Again, two kingdoms.
“And everyone did what was right in their own eyes”.
Aren’t we really talking about Civil Rights ? I think the ELCA could see a day down the road when groups who discriminate would lose tax exempt privileges. The only problem is that for many older Lutherans it is 25 years too soon. Do we want to change the laws of the land back to a time when women were the property of the husband and he owned all the property ? That would be Scriptural. Do we want to go back to the time when all marriages were arranged ? That might actually help a little on the divorce rate and I believe it would be Scriptural.
I prefer the time we live in as imperfect as it is to going back to oppression, suppession, and the days of being stoned with rocks and being burned at the stake. Lets work for world justice even if it won’t happen overnight.
@Dan Baker
And so it has been for four, nearly five, centuries. Cry grace and be accused of antinomism.
For all the complaint that the ELCA has departed from her traditional Lutheran roots, I find it telling that her present internal accusers, such as CORE/NALC/LCMC, are taking up the charges of Lutherandom’s opponents over the ages. Who has moved? I really don’t think it’s the ELCA that persists in proclaiming Luther’s, Augustine’s, and Paul’s notion of radical grace.
@Jeff
Actually, I don’t state that only in the United States have different understandings arisen. I was attempting, apparently unsuccessfully, to imply that marriage among African, Asian, Native American, etc, societies has also been vastly different from the U.S., and has changed for different reasons. Rather than detail the myriad ways that understandings and definitions of marriage are different and have changed across societies, I briefly outlined what I see as the differences in the U.S., since I assume that’s a reference point that we would both understand. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.
I’m not sure I’m understanding the point that you’re making, either, which I guess is part of the problem – are you suggesting that the ELCA needs to establish that partnered gay pastors marry in a state that allows marriage? Or are civil unions sufficient? If so, in what state or municipality? What if marriage and civil unions are illegal and explicitly not recognized where they live? What if they are unable to find a local ELCA church that will perform a religious ceremony of marriage for them? Or what if churches won’t perform a marriage but will only perform some other sort of union ceremony? You’re trying to fit a pretty complicated set of circumstances for individual gay couples into a box where it just won’t fit, at least not right now.
And how am I different from my grandmothers? Wow, where do I start? I didn’t leave school at 14 (as was expected for both farm children and most working class European women, my grandmothers were one of each) get married as a teenager, and immediately start having children, for one. The marriage ceremony itself looks very different. The promises we make to our spouses are, indeed, different.
We clearly have really different understandings of what the church is here to do. I think we are here to serve the 4% – whoever that 4% may be – gay people, transgender people, poor people, people of color, whatever. That is exactly what the church is here for. If church is just for *us*, and what *we* need it to be, those of us who aren’t those bad sinful LGBT people, then what is the point?
And you know? I thank God that the “two kingdoms” have changed alongside one another. I, my nieces, and any daughters I may have will never have to hear what my mother did in a Lutheran church when she told her pastor as a child that she wanted to be a minister – that she couldn’t do that, but that she could be a pastor’s wife. Maybe God is telling us it’s time to take another new look at things, even if that’s scary and takes us places that are uncomfortable and into situations that aren’t always clearly defined.
I’m trying really hard to understand where you’re coming from, Jeff, and…uff da. Maybe we’re not really talking with each other – maybe we’re talking with shadows and with what we caricature “the other side” as saying. I’m going to take a break from this during the Three Days and Easter, but everyone here has given me a lot to think about.
While, we are here, I want to bring up some more historical points. The founding fathers of this nation called God “Providence”. On at least parts of our family trees we go back to the colonial era of the US. People came over seeking religious freedom. For example, we both have some French Huguenots. The Pilgrims came over seeking religious freedom. The Puritans came over and established their churches here. The only problem was that these groups came over and brought their dictatorial pastors with them. Anneke Jans was one of my early ancestors in the US. Her second husband was Everardus Bogardus the firey preacher of New Amsterdam. The only place that had a semblence of freedom was with the Quakers. But they too had their rules. My husband’s surname ancestors came to Woodbridge NJ possibly after being in the Puritan Colony of Massachusetts. They had a hard time figuring out which pastor to follow. Some went Presbyterian. Some went Episcopal. Some got kicked out because they couldn’t pay their pew rent. Our President’s foremothers go back to Woodbridge NJ and Mass. too. They were white.
With the Lutherans, the original Norwegian Lutheran Church here in the US- Muskego Norway settlement, weren’t happy until they got a pastor from the state church of Norway. They wanted the traditional rules. ( I belonged to the current church there for 34 years and by golly, if you hadn’t grown up in that church, you weren’t anybody.)
When our European people came over for cheap land and to drive the Native Americans out, they brought their beliefs with them and expected everyone to become like them. Aren’t we still doing that ? We might as well all follow the Amish rules for shunning because that is what we do in fact.
When I shared my struggle with our transgendering son-in-law with my Bible Study ladies, a WA lady who was one of leaders in the group and who I thought might be a friend, wouldn’t even share my struggle with her WA husband because it was too disgusting. Things were supposed to be kept confidential but her Holier than Thou attitude from an old “pure” Norwegian background still hurts.
The problem isn’t so much rules, but how they are used and applied. Rules do have a proper place. But the way that Dan Baker and Jeff, amongst too many others, would use these is off the mark. They exhibit an approach I like to call “law reductionism” because it reduces the law from its proper rules and collapses it into moralistic dimensions. Rather than its proper uses, the law because little more than a tool for moralism. Further, such a moralism seriously and dangerously subverts the gospel and the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith. The irony is that many of the self-proclaimed “orthodox” amongst Lutherans do not hold to an orthodox Lutheran understanding of the proper place and use of the law. Understood and used properly, rules (that is, the law) are both good and necessary. Used and understood improperly, they distort and endanger, or at least obscure and lead astray.
@Dan Baker
Happy Easter to Dan, Faithfulness Gathering, LCMC, CORE, LCMS, WELS and everyone else who finds it necessary to defend God. And Happy Easter to Christians everywhere. He is Risen, He is Risen indeed. The old old joyful story extends throughout the world today even if the early disciples could not agree on what kind of form the resurrection took- physical or spiritual or if it even happened. They fought over lots of things like all people do. Our brains aren’t programed to know everything. We can only grasp a little at a time. Let us then, join in the celebration of Jesus victory over death that gives us hope for this life and any life to come.