Asian Lutherans respond

[Brian Stoffregen]

[But I supposed great white fathers such as yourself and our Presiding Bishop know better...

We think so based on our study of scriptures and time in prayer. Similarly the great white fathers is years past thought they knew better than the church at large when women were ordained; and when they spoke against slavery -- even when they were treated humanely; and against the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

[Charles_Austin]

I raise the question again, just for fun.
Does anyone entertain the thought that the Church may have erred? That even if one argues for an unbroken viewpoint (difficult to do, given some blank spots in human history), might it be that this viewpoint was wrong?
One of the earliest disputes in the faith was whether followers of Jesus were bound to the old laws of circumcision, a law as firmly entrenched in religious consciousness as any could ever be.
Might we have persisted in some errors, even over a couple of millenia?
The concept of indefectibility of the Church means that the church is preserved in its status as the means of salvation and that the church will be preserved in the truth. Good. I think we need to believe that.
But one of life's persistent questions is: Precisely what is included in that "truth"?
Structure? Bishops? Popes? Ethics? Celibacy for clergy? Ordination for women? Rules for marriage? etc. etc.? 

[Erma Wolf]

If a man says something in a forest, and there is no woman around to hear, is he still wrong?

Yes.

[Clinton Kersey]

We might want to listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury's response to the Episcopal Church's 2009 Convention as well:

7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.

[Richard Johnson]

[But I supposed great white fathers such as yourself and our Presiding Bishop know better...

We think so based on our study of scriptures and time in prayer. Similarly the great white fathers is years past thought they knew better than the church at large when women were ordained; and when they spoke against slavery -- even when they were treated humanely; and against the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

For quite a while, the great white fathers in years past spoke in favor of slavery.

[The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS]

I raise the question again, just for fun.
Does anyone entertain the thought that the Church may have erred? That even if one argues for an unbroken viewpoint (difficult to do, given some blank spots in human history), might it be that this viewpoint was wrong?

My "just for fun" response, Charles, would be one you are wont to use on this forum: "asked and answered."

However, I shan't leave it at that, since this question stopped being "fun" a long, long time ago.  With all due seriousness:

Yes, I have entertained the thought that the Church may have erred.  After all, as Lutherans we hold as a matter of confession that Councils of the Church can err, so it isn't much of a stretch to suggest that an issue that has not been directly addressed by a Council of the Church could still be unclear for Christians.

Whether the Church could have erred and whether the Church is erring in declaring homosexual relationships, regardless of their qualities, as being contrary to God's will is another matter still.  Here is where I am relying on 2 independent sorts of examinations:

1) My own, which started long before I was willing to become a seminarian because the particulars of the issue were very personal.  I continued the examination while a seminarian at institutions whose teachers were frequently on record as teaching that the Church had erred, but found their arguments wanting.  Occasionally creative.  Alas, sometimes a bit too creative with verifiable history.  None came close to convincing me -- as one who very much wanted to be convinced.  My own examination continued in concert with...

2) The ELCA's examinations, predominantly through the sexuality studies leading up to the infamous First Draft of 1993 and the sexuality studies that have led to proposals for the CWA less than 4 weeks from now.  Examinations that have had as available resources every single one of the theological minds of the ELCA and beyond. 

Now, I will admit here that even before the charge of the 2001 CWA, I had been convinced by my own examination, by the theological conversations (formal and informal) while in seminary, and by the conversations that ensued through the debates within the ELCA, ECUSA, etc. of the 1990s that there was indeed no sustainable argument for changing the Church's teaching that all homosexual relationships are, regardless of other qualities, ipso facto sinful.  This theological judgment was contrary to my desires, but my theological/pastoral conscience is bound to something other than my desires.

Nevertheless, I had hopes that, since every possible theological resource would be available to the ELCA Task Force, if anyone could offer such a sustainable argument, they would.  I participated in all the studies.  I read through all the official materials.  I participated in many discussions.

And in the end, they offered no argument at all.  They have given us assertions that cover the "sides" in the debate over the place of homosexuality in the Church, but there is no argument made for changing the Church's teaching on homosexuality anywhere to be found in the Report and Recommendations or the proposed Sexuality Statement.

In the end of nearly 8 years of work, given the chance to show that the Church's teaching has been wrong, having the best and brightest minds of the ELCA at their disposal, they did not even try.

And, I will note, in all the on-line discussions I've been in with you over 16 years, neither have you.  It is always, "Some people believe...."

Now there may be some churches where such statements hold theological weight.  If the ELCA is one of them, it has betrayed our Confession of Faith.

I'm not from Missouri, Charles.  Nevertheless, show me, and I'll gladly change my mind.  Otherwise, my conscience is bound by the Word of God, not my own desires.  Here I stand.  Until convinced otherwise by the Word and reason, I can do no other.

Pax et bonum, Steven+

[Pilgrim]

Pr. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS wrote: I'm not from Missouri, Charles.  Nevertheless, show me, and I'll gladly change my mind.  Otherwise, my conscience is bound by the Word of God, not my own desires.  Here I stand.  Until convinced otherwise by the Word and reason, I can do no other.

Tim Christ adds: Steven, your summation, with certain variations due to circumstance, place, or age, is nevertheless an excellent summation of what many of us who take our pastoral role seriously, who take our committment to the ELCA seriously, who take our calling seriously, have experienced and done and many of us have arrived at precisely the same place.

Charles frequently chastises some for not taking seriously their role in sharing the work of the wider church entrusted to us. In conversations with colleagues, it has been my recurring experience that the one taking such matters seriously is precisely the "orthodox". Many of my colleagues who are in the revisionist camp, when honest, will admit that they have not done the Biblical exegesis and serious systematic work and have generally worked at keeping their congregations out of the middle of what is clearly divisive and foundational to the faith. The 60s & 70s live on in the unexamined trendiness of many of our ELCA clergy towards the latest perceived cause of injustice.

In the meantime, the very things we have been called to shepherd: the mysteries...if you will, go unattended.

[Richard Johnson]

Pr. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS wrote: I'm not from Missouri, Charles.  Nevertheless, show me, and I'll gladly change my mind.  Otherwise, my conscience is bound by the Word of God, not my own desires.  Here I stand.  Until convinced otherwise by the Word and reason, I can do no other.

Tim Christ adds: Steven, your summation, with certain variations due to circumstance, place, or age, is nevertheless an excellent summation of what many of us who take our pastoral role seriously, who take our committment to the ELCA seriously, who take our calling seriously, have experienced and done and many of us have arrived at precisely the same place.

Amen to both Steven and Tim.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

Amen to Steven, Tim and Richard

[Team Hesse]

Will it take actual passage of these recommendations to cause a rift with the Asian Lutherans (and anyone else, for that matter) and the ELCA, or, now that they realize what is being discussed here, does anyone think they might have similar problems with the whole "live and let live" policy that came out of the last churchwide assembly (the decision not to discipline pastors/congregations who ignore or go against current policies on bssu, etc.)?

I personally think it is better to be honest and just pass the new policy than it is to "keep the old policies" and ignore those who do otherwise. 

Any 3-year-old knows that unless the "house rules" have a sanction for those who don't follow them, they are not really rules at all.  If my granddaughter jumps on the bed, it does no good for her mother to say "we don't jump on the bed" if, when she continues to do so, nothing happens to curtail the behavior.  Mom obviously doesn't really mean the bed is not to be jumped on, only that some of us don't do that.  AND, whatever else Mom says is now a *little less reliable* ...

Debbie

[loschwitz]

Has it occurred to anyone else that the actions of The Episcopal Church vis a vis the Anglican Communion resemble that  same American unilateralism for which TEC has so roundly condemned  certain American presidents?

[revjagow]

Amen to Steven, Tim and Richard

Fourfold Amen.  Steven, I was tearing up toward the end of your post.  God has blessed you with the gift to put into words the inner feelings of many who have been doing that kind of soul searching, including this LCMS brother who has been asking for a while, "do we have it right?"  I could not have answered better than you.  That was brilliant.

I will point out that it took Charles to bring that out.  People may disagree, but to me, Charles always makes people think through the pastoral consequences of the positions we hold.  I may be naive, but I think it provokes many a good discussion here. 

BTW, above is the inaugural post of clintonkersey and I, for one, welcome his presence here.  He is one of the reasons I should be seeing many of you in October.

Blessings!

[Richard Johnson]

BTW, above is the inaugural post of clintonkersey and I, for one, welcome his presence here.  He is one of the reasons I should be seeing many of you in October.

You're not coming until October? You mean you're going to miss me preaching after Wednesday Vespers on Sept. 30?   

[revjagow]

Oops!  Guess I should double check those dates before I buy my plane tickets, huh?

[Richard Johnson]

Oops!  Guess I should double check those dates before I buy my plane tickets, huh?

Speaking as one who, many years ago now, bought a plane ticket for a meeting that had been held the day before my flight . . . yes, you should.