When teaching about sex replaces teaching about salvation as a defining mark of the church, something has clearly gone severely awry.
Nearly ten years ago, I taught an adult forum at my church about the Biblical treatment of homosexuality. One of the participants raised the familiar notion that the progressive view abandoned the Bible in favor of popular culture. It struck me that she was right but she had the roles reversed. That is, it seemed that the conservative religious view was based on cultural homophobic impulses instead of Biblical hospitality and inclusivity teachings or on the logical implications of Jesus’ two commands. The Biblical “clobber passages” served as convenient proof texts for a fearful and misinformed popular culture notwithstanding solid Biblical scholarship that rejected the implications of the passages for a modern day.
A fresh scholarly article that is lighting up the Lutheran blogosphere makes this point explicitly and eloquently. Thus, I’m jumping on the bandwagon and joining many blog friends who are promoting the article by theologian Jon Pahl who is Professor of the History of Christianity at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and a Fellow in the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University.
Professor Pahl is no Casper milk toast. Here is a sampling of his smack-down commentary:
All in all, the core of Lutheran CORE is rotten. One can get more than a whiff of Docetism, Donatism, and Pelagianism — heresies all — in the doctrinal formulations of the various groups represented in the coalition. Lutheran CORE represents, in its demographic and historical contours, a largely white, heterosexual, male backlash against the supposedly evil changes in gender roles, sexual mores, and participatory democracy that marked the 1960s.
Read and enjoy his full article here.
And you and I think WE are tough on CORE? Jon Pahl leaves us in the dust. Thanks for steering me to this fine article.
Prof. Paul has never backed down from his beliefs. When he taught at Valparaiso, he was quite an instrumental voice protesting the ban on women preaching in the Chapel of the Resurrection. He is one of the reasons that policy was reversed.
And after reading his article. I have to agree. There is defintely some slinging around of white, heterosexual male privilege (I know, Tony, I have a big brush.) It’s about maintaining the the status quo.
This weekend, the first reading in our congregation was from Acts 10, and it definitely hits home right now. Christianity has never been about the status quo. It is about reaching out to all and breaking down barriers and lifting up people that were not deemed “biblically worthy” during the time of the early Church. It isn’t about codification but about reaching all.
Thanks Kelly, I heard that lesson twice in two different denominations. Unfortunately people think “eew, I could never eat serpent” instead of getting the symbolic content.
I just came from Culvers for lunch . The local special ed teachers had brought the class for lunch. There were almost as many teachers and paras as kids, which showed that these were the most difficult children to manage. As I was leaving, I said to the teachers “When I win the lottery, I will give each of you a million dollars and 2 weeks at a nice spa.” They appreciated the pat on the back.
We have a step grandson will developmental disabilities and quite severe autism. In stead of worrying so much about theology and who is right and who is wrong, I would challenge each pastor out there to spend at least a half day visiting the local special education classes. That is where the Kingdom of God starts.
Hope you got that one. Not being able to edit sets me back.
Actually, I was deeply disturbed by Pahl’s rantings – it is hardly “scholarly” critique and belonged in an op-ed section of a newspaper rather than in an ethics journal. This only sheds the ELCA in a bad light – that we would resort to this kind of name-calling and half-truths. I’m not a member of CORE, but this article actually made me feel some sympathy for them and only validates their claims that the ELCA leadership is launching vicious attacks upon them.
There are a variety of skewed and unsubstantiated claims in here – not the least of which is claiming they’re a bunch of white-supremacists, ignoring their outreach and affiliations with numerous African and South American churches. And the fact that there are fewer women in CORE only means that most women in the ELCA are liberal-minded and won’t affiliate with an organization like CORE. I’m also not sure he actually knows what “millennialism” is based on how he’s presented it here.
There are plenty of things one can criticize when it comes to CORE, but calling them rotten white-supremacists I don’t think is going to bring civility back to this discussion. And I know many of the fence-sitters on CORE are now leaning far more heavily TOWARD CORE because of this article. Rants and name-calling don’t make us look any better – and Dr. Pahl really should heed the Romans text he quoted regarding judgment.
Is the ELCA so fearful and scared that we have to resort to this kind of hate-filled ranting towards those we disagree with?? What happened to Bishop Hanson’s pleas for us to agree to disagree on this matter?
And while we’re all tired of discussing it – we’re only tired of it because the liberal side has finally won and now doesn’t want to pursue it anymore. The conservatives were more than happy to let the conversation die if the liberal side would have allowed it to die back when they kept getting voted down over and over again over the past 20 years. But liberals kept pushing the agenda year after year after year until they finally got their way.
So let’s stop throwing stones and recognize that we all have contributed to our present situation. And articles like these will never heal the divisions among us that already run so deep.
@Rebecca
Has professor Pahl engaged in over-the-top hyperbole? Perhaps, but you hardly do his comments justice when you grossly overstate his position by claiming he accuses CORE of being “a bunch of white supremacists”–your words, not his.
This thing was a pretty funny read. Thanks for pointing me to it Obie. I don’t carry freight for CORE, but two comments come to mind.
For anyone who is part of the HE adopting ELCA to accuse someone else of Donatism is kinda the fire calling the match hot.
Lilly & Kelly: both of you have spoken of the chaos and confusion that all of this has caused in your own congregations (which are apparently too far from the ivory tower to be of note). Using words like that makes you radio talk show millenialists.
And I have to agree with Rebecca, I am unsure what his definition of that term is …
I actually never knew that there were so few women involved in CORE/LCMC/NALC as leaders until I read this article.
I also don’t see much in this article that is particularly out of line, except that the opponents of the CWA decisions are among the most defensive people when criticized that I’ve ever encountered in my life. I have not so far seen a detailed rebuttal of Pahl’s article that suggests that the author actually read the piece. I’m convinced at this point that the loudest voices online condemning him are also the ones who are most unable to handle being criticized.
I am only a retired school teacher so I had to look up those theological terms in that article. But it does show that there have been many theories about God and religion, probably since man first realized that the volcano might get him if he didn’t try to appease it.
@Ann
I would request that you separate CORE/NALC from LCMC, rather than lump them together as you did. They really are two very different animals.
LCMC has been around for 9 years, and women have been involved in every aspect of the organization from its inception. Unless I missed something, the article only mentions LCMC once, and that in an odd and seemingly incorrect way, but it is hard to tell, since I don’t really understand what he is saying.
As for NALC, I cannot speak. CORE is a coalition of a group of organizations, including WA. When I was on the WA board, we had 4 women of 10, and one of them has been president for quite a while.
Blessings, TS
@Rebecca
To echo what Obie said, Professor Pahl is not accusing CORE of white supremicism, but what Pahl is saying makes sense. Advocating for the status quo of conservative/traditional lutheran hierarchy is very much in line with advocating for the status quo of white heterosexual male privilege. Look at one of Tony’s charts examining CORE, and while on the surface it “supports” female clergy, there is a little wiggle room to reject it as well.
And if you examine the more conservative facets of Lutheranism (and I am also includng LCMS and WELS into the mix) what is the overwhelming demographic for the clergy: heterosexual white men. Quite frankly in most of Lutheranism there is a paucity of clergy of color.
I’m certainly not comparing Tony to a man in my congregation, but in a meeting this past winter, I disagreed with a gentleman’s hyperbole about the GLBT community and pedophilia, his reply was to wag his Bible at me and yell, “Look here, young lady!”
The male self-entitlement could not be missed. How dare I question him, so let’s reduce me to a simple girl to discredit me.
For the record, I am hardly a young lady. That is a term used with girls. I am pushing forty, mother of two, have a doctorate, a mortgage and enough student debt to rival the GNP of a small, third world country. I am hardly a young lady by any stretch of the imagination.
btw, Tony, that doesn’t read how I was thinking it. I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m trying to point out that I don’t have a big brush all the time, but that male white privilege is very much a live in some facets of the church. Does that make more sense then above?
Kelly, I agree. The “old boys’ club” still has the power. Some of the old boys’ club members are 40ish and 50ish at this stage. God is still male to them . If you are an old German it is especially bad because then we have ethnic order too. You are in a semi rural community yet. I wonder if the farmers in your area are as vocal. On the farm there is sometimes more sexual equality and sometimes not. Often the farm wife has to work side by side with her husband on the farm as well as take care of the family. Perhaps where you work it is different ?? I doubt it. Educated women are a threat to some men. We don’t bow to their “authority ” as easily as if we were barefoot and pregnant.
To all of you who qualify: Happy Mother’s and Grandmother’s Day. May your families be a blessing to you and if they aren’t, may God give you the strength you need to deal with it.
@Kelly
Pushing 40? Hah! Young Lady.
BTW, Happy Mothers Day to all to whom that applies here!
On a specific critique, I love the way Pahl tosses in a reference to “participatory democracy” as one of the things the old white straight boys abhor, as though that is also descriptive of the ELCA. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Really, Tony? Because I know of some democratic votes taken by the ELCA in August of 09 that have some folks REALLY riled up right now. Maybe you’ve heard about them.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Not feeling so young tonight after I was stooped over (I really need to be more ergonomic) planting veggies all afternoon. Think I sunburned my lips of all places. Ouch.
@Ann
Maybe I am being a little too precise here, but this is the reason I disagree.
Democracy, in its purest form, is one where each individual has a vote. That is clearly not the case in the Great Big Lutheran Church. I seriously doubt (though I may be wrong – we will never know) that those changes would have passed a vote of the members or even of the congregations.
Representative Democracy is one in which individuals vote for a person who represents them. Those individuals are responsible to those who elected them.
The ELCA uses the term “voting member”, rather than delegate. The claim is that this is a theological choice. Actually, it is simply a term from Minnesota corporate law. The instructions given to VM’s (it used to be a yellow sheet at the front of the synod assembly booklet) said clearly that you were not responsible to anyone. A current ELCA webpage on the matter http://www2.elca.org/assembly/votingmatters/RoleofAssembly.html is a little more vague, but in the past (SW Wash Synod, up through 2005) we were told that the voting member status meant that we could not even ask for a report at the next synod assembly of those whom we had sent as our representatives and we were not allowed to ask them how they had voted on any issue. Not exactly a representative democracy like any I know of.
The vote was democratic within the assembly, but one cannot make the same claim about the entire CW process, IMO.
Blessings TS
Tony, my comment to you should have had a smiley face behind it – I forget that my tone can’t be read on the Internet sometimes. I don’t know, I mean – my congregation selected the people who represented us at Synod Assembly, and they selected people to represent the Synod at the next Churchwide…you’re right that it’s not exactly representative democracy, but it’s not as though we in the pews have no voice, either. I voted for the people who I thought would best represent my church’s views on a host of issues when we decided who would go to Synod Assembly.
I will say, though, that the response from some critics of CWA 09 has been to want to limit the role that elected delegates, particularly laypeople, play in making decisions in the denomination, which I think is absolutely the wrong way to go.
@Ann
Smiley face accepted.
I prefer a Presbyterian system, where the local presbyteries (where every congregation is represented) have repeatedly turned back what they deemed the misguided decisions of the General Synod (I think it is called.)
That is exactly the sort of system we put into place in LCMC, FWIW.
Over on Shellfish Blog, Pahl characterized women he disagrees with as “consorts.” Hmmm.
That’s disappointing on Pahl’s part. It’s hard to shake a lifetime of sexist ideas and language. (And homophobic and transphobic ideas and language, for that matter.)
But it is also true that those who have a pretty tenuous hold on equal rights themselves are often the first to want to deny similar rights to others.
I have no idea what “Shellfish Blog” is!
@Ann
There is this nifty new thing called google. 🙂 If you type in Shellfish blog you get this link: http://saveelca.blogspot.com/
Way to go, Google! I have now seen the offending comment…I agree that’s a very poor choice of words.
However, when I see how vehemently some women in CORE/NALC criticize the CWA decisions, I really can’t help but think that these are women who are trying a little too hard to hold onto their own newly-gained privilege and are fearful of granting it to others. I am just old enough to remember when women pastors were kind of a scary thing in the rural area where I grew up, and the arguments used against my childhood church hiring a woman are not too much different than what I hear now about gay pastors. I wish I could tell some of these women that you don’t lose your own freedom by giving some of it to others.
@Ann, I repsect you for your convictions on this issue. I am a 27-year female pastor of the LCA and ELCA. I am active in CORE and hope to be in the NALC. The Social Statement on Human Sexuality passed at CWA 2009 (where I was a voting member) describes the understanding which I amd many others hold of the Christian view of homosexuality as one of 4 valid stances that are to be accepted by those in this church (ELCA). At the assembly we were assured repeatedly that our bound consciences would be respected in this matter.
Can you not allow me to hold what the ELCA recognizes as a legitimate viewpoint without second-guessing my motivations and casting aspersions on me and my sisters? Can you not accept that, perhaps, in prayerful study of scripture and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in prayer, this might simply be the direction in which I feel led?
@Donna
Sure, I can do that. And how about you have your folks stop referring to me as a heretic, unchurched, a member of an “apostate” denomination, or someone who is being led by the “Dark One?” (All, p.s., things I’ve been told by CORE supporters in the church where I grew up.)
I tend to think even my most strident comments here pale in comparison, Donna.
Ann, I haven’t had it that bad but I don’t feel comfortable in the now LCMC church where the pastor or members are downloading all the SOLA brochures on law and gospel and on redemption for people to read. The transition in this church seems to be “all or nothing”. I don’t know what they are trying to prove except maybe “my way or the highway”.
@Obie Holmen and @Kelly – true – he did not come right out and call them white supremacists. That was my interpretation of his statements that talked about the heavy male dominance, and his later statement: “Such nostalgia and imperial longing for authoritative power mark Lutheran CORE.”
I’m not overly interested in attempting to defend CORE or even truly engage the places I feel Pahl has erred in his assessments. What is the greater concern for me is the atmosphere of hatred between the opposing groups on this matter. It has sickened me and makes me want to leave the Lutheran church all together and have nothing to do with the ELCA, CORE, etc. I can’t blame the CORE people for disagreeing with the CWA decision – their basic criticisms have merit – it really isn’t scriptural, and aside from our emotional desire to collapse the law into the gospel, we don’t have much standing for what we are condoning. (Not to mention created a huge double standard for the heterosexual singles among us that struggle with celibacy in this day and age given the cultural climate – dating for most single clergy, especially single women, is extremely limited due to the inability for most men to accept their adherence to Visions and Expectations – no, perhaps not impossible, but very limiting, and most single women in the clergy that I know, knew it going in and accepted that as one of the sacrifices they simply would have to make for the sake of their ministry, which was more important to them than having sex or finding personal happiness in a relationship.)
I am just saddened that the CORE people felt they had to break off, and am even sadder that the liberal side has essentially said don’t let the door hit you on the way out. I know many people in CORE who are NOT homophobes, who are not horrible, awful, bigoted people – and who struggle with their understanding of scripture and with the homosexual lifestyle. Many know and have friends that are homosexual, and they have scoured the scriptures trying to find some way that they can reconcile its words with what they want it to say… and they simply have not been able to do that. I do not hold their conclusions and interpretation against them.
I just wish the name-calling and ugliness would stop – from BOTH sides. The intimidation tactics I’ve seen going on, and just out and out intolerance (from a group that is trying to base their whole theology on “tolerance” and acceptance) for those who disagree just irritates me. Apparently, tolerance and acceptance is only extended to those people we feel are worthy for us to extend acceptance and tolerance toward. Such acceptance and tolerance apparently does not extend toward those we disagree with. Somehow, my best friend from seminary and I are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue – but we are able to remain best friends and are able to behave civilly and with love toward one another despite our disagreement. Why is that so impossible within the ELCA? And don’t blame the CORE people completely. The liberal side has acted just as arrogantly and without compassion or understanding.
@Rebecca
I think your comment illustrates a lot of what you say you dislike about the debate. CORE’s “basic criticisms have merit” – to you. “It really isn’t scriptural” – to you. YOU do not think “we have much standard for what we are condoning.”
What you are doing here is suggesting that there is something deficient in the way that people who disagree with you (but not yourself, you of course subscribe to the correct Scriptural interpretation) use their God-given sense to read and understand the Bible. That’s not an honest conversation, Rebecca, nor is it respectful of my bound conscience and my reading of Scripture. There is a Bible verse about paying attention to the plank in your own eye that probably applies here – to both of us.
@Lilly
I agree with you. The church I grew up in is in the difficult position of being divided about 50/50 – probably more like 60/40 in favor of staying in the ELCA, but half opposed to the CWA decisions. It gets tense and the conversation got heated when I was asked what the church I belong to now thought of all of this – when I explained what “Reconciling In Christ” was and that my church and my family were happy with the decisions, people got a little upset. Not only is it “my way or the highway,” but I think some people have convinced themselves that there aren’t very many supporters of the CWA decisions and their opinions don’t matter much anyway.
@Ann
Thanks Ann. This church thing entered into my dreams last night as a nightmare. The feelings I expressed towards the LCMC pastor in the dream were much stronger than I want to admit to in daylight. Sooner or later I will work it through but I still need some time. I haven’t resigned from this church yet because I don’t know which one I am going to land in but I think that might solve my nightmare problem.
And then there’s my congregation where the name Liberal ELCA-er is spat out with as many warm fuzzies as being called a nigger, retard or whore. (Sorry if those words offend.) Yeah, that’s really Christlike. :rolls eyes:
As for the “consort” comment, I can say from personal experience that Professor Pahl is not a misogynist. In fact he was instrumental in changing the policy at Valparaiso where ordained women were banned from officiating or preaching in the Chapel of the Resurrection.
I’ll agree that “consort” wasn’t the best of terms. But I can understand where he is coming from. If you look at Tony’s chart (http://wordalone.org/pdf/ComparisonLCMC-NALC.pdf) comparing NALC/CORE to the LCMC, here is one area where I will actually defend the LCMC and agree with it.
The LCMC is committed to ordaining women. To CORE/NALC, there is wiggle room to reject it. From CORE/NALC’s policy:
(quoted from Tony’s chart)
Wow, that’s a pretty big slippery slope right there. Will that diversity of opinion pave the way to reject ordination of women on a congregational or synod basis. Does that mean ordained women will merely be grandfathered into the NALC clergy, or does this slippery slope pave the way for a future moratorium on their ordination.
Which brings us back to supporting the status quo of the heterosexual male holding the keys to the entire church.
So let’s go back to term “consort.” The spouse of someone in power, but having no power one’s self. To use the monarchy model, Queen Elizabeth is the monarch of England. Her husband Phillip is the “prince consort” he is not on equal footing as his wife. A consort is a companion, associate or partner. NEVER someone on equal footing with the leadership.
So yeah, poor choice of words, but I think it reflects Pahl has clearly noticed that same slippery slope which leaves the door open for the CORE/NALC leadership to restrict/eliminate the role of women in true positions of leadership in its new denomination.
Pingback:When a Theologian Enters the Fray « Progressively Lutheran
Ann, I haven’t had it that bad but I don’t feel comfortable in the now LCMC church where the pastor or members are downloading all the SOLA brochures on law and gospel and on redemption for people to read. The transition in this church seems to be “all or nothing”. I don’t know what they are trying to prove except maybe “my way or the highway”.