The big news, of course, is that the sentence that read:
Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.
has been replaced by this paragraph:
An ordained minister who is in a publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationship recognized and supported by an expression of this church is expected to live in fidelity to his or her partner, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a publicly accountable relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful.
The other big news is that the draft includes the ELCA's proposed official definition of PALMSGR -- "publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships:"
The terms in the phrase “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship” are intended to have their common meanings.
“Lifelong” means that the relationship is intended to last as long as both parties to the relationship shall live.
“Monogamous” means that the relationship is between two people—one to one.
“Same-gender” means that the relationship is between two men or two women.
“Public accountability” means that the two parties to the relationship openly acknowledge the relationship, have a demonstrable commitment to the relationship, and have a willingness to seek and accept the aid of individuals and community in sustaining the relationship. For an ordained minister, both church and community are part of the public to which he or she is accountable. Public accountability for an ordained minister in a heterosexual marriage includes recognition and support in a congregation of this church and legally recorded civil recognition. Similarly, public accountability for an ordained minister in a lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship includes recognition and support in a congregation of this church and may include a legally recorded civil recognition and other evidence that the relationship is lifelong and monogamous.
Also, the draft states that
The ELCA intends both to allow the rostered service of people who are in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship and to provide for those whose convictions do not favor such service.
It's nice to know that the ELCA is going "to provide for" those whose consciences are captive to the Word of God. I'm not sure exactly what that sentence means, but it certainly is an attempt to say that the ELCA will "make room for" those who uphold the Christian tradition on marriage and sexual behavior.
My favorite sentence in the proposed document:
Ordained ministers, whether single, married or in a publicly accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship, are expected to uphold an understanding of marriage and family in their public ministry as well as in private life that is biblically informed and consistent with the teachings of this church.
It is amazing that the ELCA calls for accountability to an understanding of marriage that is both "biblically informed" and "consistent with the teachings of this church" in the same sentence as it describes pastors "in a publicly accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationship." Of course, "biblically informed" and "consistent with the teachings of this church" are also in opposition with each other these days.
The proposed draft only includes changes to Part III -- The Ordained Minister as Person and Example.
I'm anxiously waiting the change that will need to come to Part II -- Faithfulness to the Church's Confession.
The powers that be in Chicago do not seem to understand that changes will need to be made to this section as well if the ELCA is to move ahead with the rostering changes made by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly with a straight face:
Ordained ministers of this church are to confess and teach the authoritative and normative character of the Scriptures "as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life" (ELCA Constitution, 2.03). The ecumenical creeds are to be taught as true declarations of the faith of this church. The Lutheran Confessions are to be acknowledged as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures.
In identifying specific documents as normative for preaching and teaching, this church expects its ordained ministers to understand that the faith of the church is corporate, not individualistic; catholic, not sectarian; orthodox, not heretical. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America expects that its ordained ministers teach nothing "that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic Church" (Conclusion to the Augsburg Confession).
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions should be stumbling blocks to the ELCA's new teaching and standards. Of course, that didn't stop the 2009 Assembly.I don't know which is more frightening, that the ELCA will delete sections requiring faithfulness to Scripture and the Church's doctrinal tradition for its pastors or that churchwide leaders do not see the contradiction between "publicly accountable, lifelong monogamous, same-gender relationships" and teaching nothing "that departs from the Scriptures or the catholic Church."
12 comments:
I was going to remind you that the document has always been called Vision and Expectations. But now that there is more than one vision for the, uh, expression of our sexuality, I suppose the common mistake of calling V&E "Visions and Expections" is now accurate.
[Sigh!]
Gee, I wish I were smart enough to have thought of the two "Visions" by myself. It was typo -- or maybe a Freudian slip -- or maybe a God thing.
Either way, you're right: it now is accurate to talk about two visions for ordained ministers.
I am an outspoken PROPONENT of the assembly actions regarding LGBT issues. I was a Goodsoil volunteer during the assembly, and my own blog is replete with posts supporting the Human Sexuality Statement and the revisions to Ministry Policies. Thus, I submit this comment as one in significant disagreement with much of what you and Lutheran Core proffer.
Can we not engage in dialogue without demonizing and caricaturizing--indeed, without judging the other to be unchurched (per CORE spokesperson Nestingen), unbiblical, even unchristian? Can we not disagree over Scriptural interpretation without throwing around hurtful, judgmental words such as heresy or heresiology (per CORE spokesperson Braaten)?
I understand that you believe, and believe strongly, that the Bible condemns all same gender sexual behavior, even in the context of a committed relationship. Please understand that many disagree and interpret Christian ethics differently. For many of us, the words of Jesus that all the law and the prophets hang on love of God and love of neighbor creates a moral norm, a guide, a principal, a measure by which human behavior is tested. For us, the weight of the evidence is persuasive that the mutual nurturing and nourishment that occurs in a committed, intimate relationship is good not evil, whether that relationship is heterosexual or homosexual. God has created us as relational beings and has gifted humanity with sexual expression, not merely for procreation, but to foster and develop the intimacy of love for another in a "monogamous, lifelong" relationship, both for the 80-90% of us created heterosexual and the 10-20% of us created homosexual. While you may disagree, and disagree strongly, please do not disparage those of us who hold this view. We do not come to it lightly, nor do we reject Scripture, as we wrestle with the application of Christ's own ethical standard.
For us, this core gospel ethical norm carries greater weight and authority than Levitical prohibitions and Pauline assumptions. Much as the church has reinterpreted Scripture and nearly two millennia of church teaching regarding slavery, women's ordination, and divorce, so too we reinterpret the so-called "clobber" passages which have justified intemperate and intolerant attitudes toward our gay brothers and lesbian sisters.
Disagree if you will and debate vigorously, but don't ASSUME that yours is the only possible interpretation. Self doubt is the blossom of wisdom. Self assurance chokes the flowering of humility and too easily rots into self righteousness.
Thank you for your post with good information about the text of proposed policies and procedures. But, we can do without the "harrumph" demonization of those of us who disagree with CORE as though we reject or ignore Scripture. And, we can do without the caricature of the actions of 1,045 voting members of the assembly that was 60% laity, chosen in local conferences and synods from across the country, as if the decisions were the result of top down, heavy handed, totalitarian power mongering from "the powers that be in Chicago".
Thanks for considering an alternative point of view.
I often wonder, but haven't been able to find it...what is CORE's stance on homosexual clergy that practice abstinence? Is it the same as the ELCA, prior to the vote?
Thank you,
"For us, this core gospel ethical norm carries greater weight and authority than Levitical prohibitions and Pauline assumptions."
Interesting. It is only in Leviticus that we find explicit condemnation of incest (Lev 18:1-30). It is also in Leviticus that some of the finest passages concerning justice for the poor and behavior in society are to be found (Lev 19: 1-37). Do these carry less weight as well?
This is the danger of cherry-pickling in the Bible, which Goodsoil is guilty of in this case. Goodsoil also ignores Jesus's teaching on marriage, divorce and sexual purity, which were stronger that what the Old Testament taught (Matthew 5:27-32). There is no rational basis to the notion that Jesus would approve of homosexuality. When the woman was caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), Jesus told her to "go and sin no more." He did not say, "Go and do as you please, since a poll of 638 adults in Palestine shows that 63.7% of them believe that adultery is no longer a sin (that is so Old Testament), so who am I to dispute the majority opinion?"
Obie, you also need to stop labeling criticism as "demonizing". Aside from being not very mature, it is an effort on your part to silence dissent. And dissent is what the people of Goodsoil most need to hear right now - not the lies of the smooth-talking Flatterer telling them that the Gospel is whatever they want it to be, and that if you simply use the word "love" enough it will be all right.
This is in response to Obie. For me, the issue of marriage and family come down God's created order... As Jesus said in Mark 10:6 - "from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female' and then continues with teaching that certainly lifts up heterosexual marriage. And what follows (Mark 10:13ff) is a teaching on children. So, my working thesis has been: "Because God has chosen to create, protect and nurture human life through the sexual act and committed love of one man and one woman, therefore we honor committed heterosexual monogamous marriage above all other forms of sexual intimacy." Are the proponents of same-gender unions willing to at the very least say that same-gender unions "miss the mark" of God's intent?
If asked for an example of dysfunctional denial of the obvious, I now have it.
Based upon a personal experience I am confused as to why spending time on the re-wording of Vision and Expectations will be of value or importance, when previously few in authority to the best of my knowledge had the integrity to appropriately enforce Vision and Expectations or support anyone who did.
I heard,"It is out of our hands, it's up to GOD now"; but since Pentecost isn't it the "Spirit" moving in and through the Priest(s) of the Priesthood of Believers who is to act on God's behalf, just as Jesus, on behalf of his father turned the tables in the temple to protect his father's Kingdom.
In the secular Kingdom those in a leadership position, responsible for the enforcement of their organization's policies and procedures who choose not to enforce and/or blatantly ignore an organization's policies are routinely asked to resign their position or face termination.
How's the hymn go, "Trust and obey for there's no other way."
Peace Be With You
The people on both sides of this issue can be right and can be wrong. We've stretched ourselves and the ELCA to point where we snap back at the least of comments.
My concern is now as a church we have violated federal law, specifically the privacy laws as now gay and lesbian pastors will be required to "announce" their sexuality even if they do not want to reveal this aspect of their life.
Leaving the Council of Bishops and the ELCA Church Council in the position to "find ways" to make this all work is regrettable. Even the US military has "hope-for" and "anticipated" outcomes, best case or worse case scenarios of military actions. Those voting at the ELCA Assembly having a 4+" binder of details on the sexualtiy statement but with no section on "what does this mean?" after the vote is a sign to me that those pushing for this reality care little for the heart-beat and mission enterprise of the ELCA. It lacks when passed through the grid of the "whole counsel of God."
And, just for the record, prior to recent years, when was the last time you heard the phrase "bound conscience" used like 'simul justus et peccator' or 'saved by grace through faith' or 'sola gratia - sola scriptura - sola fidae?" What a slick phrase, 'bound concscience,' and it's deception is now bearing witness to an unfolding exodus of people from the ELCA that few if any anticipated.
From Anonymous I quote "an unfolding exodus of people from the ELCA that few if any anticipated." How could anyone be so naive, when they've already witnessed what has taken place in the Episcopal Church!
I am pretty confused. I’m debating whether to bail from the ELCA or not, and where would I find Lutherans who actually live, share, and breathe the Gospel as the Holy Spirit so equips?
Reading the sardonic/bashing entries here certainly doesn't seem to be where I’d choose to bring others to experience the Word and family of God.
The constant slander, and absence of fruit bearing dogmatism doesn’t benefit anything except to point to one's immaturity in the matter. Why would anyone be encouraged to jump on CORE's bandwagon unless they lacked maturity, as well?
I look at some the names of people who are signing on with CORE and I’m amazed: that some would stoop to the triteness I read on this blog, and alongside other pastors whose sins are logs when placed alongside what become splinters of those calling themselves homosexuals.
I'm struggling with two things, basically, [1] the issue of promiscuity and how what the homosexuals are about is any different from the countless Lutherans pastors who find slipping into bed with their parishioners being any different.
[2] How the visions & expectations statement, all of a sudden, is called to task when countless pastors who have been caught with their pants down are simply sent to other congregations and allowed to repeat their behavior time and time again. They have destroyed congregations, community, the youngest in the faith, and gone unrepentant.
The only time I have seen where a pastor has been reprimanded and prosecuted for promiscuity has occasionally been when committed against a minor.
Why is the Vision & Expectation an issue for banter, now, when it has not been upheld heretofore by the Churches Good Ole Boy Society in the past?
All this bantering just suggests, to me, that those who banter the most covertly feel they must have all the more reason to keep the limelight off themselves. Let’s be careful, you children of ill, “Dost thou contesteth too greatly ov'r these matters??” What’s in your closet you hope no one will take note of about your behavior?
So where are God and the call to live the Great Commission in this mix?.. I don't personally read that anyone here is living it, they’re too busy cracking jokes about someone else who was likewise created imago dei.
Finally, is there such a place where a Lutheran sinner/saint can actually share in living, baptizing, and teaching the Gospel in community? Perhaps someone like me, is peaking in and has a flag to raise.
After one struggles with confusion for a while it can become too exhausting to even bother to search anymore.
NoZ, I don't think you are confused at all. You appear to be using a political tactic that has worked so well against conservative politicians. That is, to pretend to be one of them and then criticize them for their beliefs. If that is your, and others intentions, I submit to you that reasonably intelligent people can readily detect or question your motives. You won't change anyone's belief that is already part of CORE. You serve only to aggravate them.
I am one of those who has "bailed" from the ELCA. I tried to stand and fight, and failed. I was then told by my former pastor that "this is the way it is, we're staying ELCA and complying with the new directives." So I left.
The church I now attend, and will soon become a member of, says "LCMS" on its sign.
Post a Comment