This long overdue post literally couldn't have happened without 7 months passing since the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. I could have, of course, written something else but didn't feel inspired. Since the Churchwide Assembly and resulting chaos, I have done a good deal of research on the subject of sexuality both in and out of the church as well as homosexuality in specific.
Through the research I've conducted as well as a 20 page term paper I've written, I have actually found myself being drawn back "into the fold" of the Lutheran church. It has been years since I would self-identify as "Lutheran" but I've even gone so far as to change my Facebook information to reflect my return. I would imagine, for many people, the 2009 Churchwide Assembly may have had the opposite effect--while not turning them away from the Lutheran church, it may have turned them away from the ELCA.
The aspect of my research I'd like to focus on is the conversation (abstractly speaking) that has taken place over the past 3 months between my father and I. Upon reading Faithful Conversations, a resource published by Augsburg Fortress (publishing wing of the ELCA), I suggested my father read it as well. While not wanting to speak on his behalf, I think it is safe to say that he disagreed with the ELCA's decision and was deeply disturbed by it.
So my father and I would exchange notes so to speak on the different essays on Faithful Conversations as well as go down tangents based on some other reading I had done for class. The net effect of all this study and talking was that he remained against the decision and I remained for it (and even more). Yet this experiment was a success because in the end we were able to understand and appreciate, while not agreeing, with each other's position. I could sympathize with my father's frustration with having to accept a decision he viewed as an incorrect interpretation of scripture, but my father was also able to accept that scripture could be interpreted in a way to allow for homosexuals as priests without having to rely on logical or hermeneutical gymnastics (at least I think he is!).
This mutual appreciation for divergent views is of utmost importance right now in my own church. People are upset with the ELCA, the synod, and each other not because they disagree, but because they haven't had a covnersation about the topic. The "pro-group" can't relate to the "ant-group" because they haven't heard their explanation and vice versa. A mature conversation between all parties (and there are not just two but many) is needed not to come to an agreement, but to come to an understanding.
If having this conversation can lead me to embrace being Lutheran as well as bringing my father and I closer together, there is no reason to fear having the same talk among a congregation.
For those interested in pursuing this conversation further I recommend the following resources:
The Church and the Homosexual by John McNeil--This is written by a Jesuit and is not impartial. His goal is to set forth and new theology that is accepting of homosexuality.
Faithful Conversation (ed. by James Childs)--This is the collection of essays I mention. It is impartial on the whole, though some individual essays take a side.
Background Essay on Biblical Texts by Arland Hultgren and Walter Taylor--An exegetical exposition of the Bible passages dealing with homosexuality. Impartial as both authors provide differing views. Available for free at
This last resource is part of Journey Together Faithfully which is a three part series on the church and sexuality. Part 2 is specifically about homosexuality
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, August 23, 2009
On the Latest ELCA Headlines
In an effort to be fully disclosed--I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran church. Since college, I haven't believed in being a member of a church or of labeling my beliefs. So while I was raised in the Lutheran church, I currently don't label myself "Lutheran." The ELCA does, however, sign my paycheck.
For those in the dark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has recently voted to accept the ordination of homosexuals in active, monogamous relationships. Previously, homosexuals could be ordained only if they remained celibate.
As you can imagine, this has split the church. While many people agree with the national assembly's decision (and some of those who agree actually surprised me), a sizeable minority disagree with the decision--and many of them vehemently. While I have heard many reasons against the ordination of gays in active, monogamous relationships, all of these reasons have been ideological. I have yet to hear a well thought out theological argument against it. I hope I do, though.
More full disclosure--I am not a theologian. I'm just a dude. I am, however, a sola scriptura dude. When the pastor of my church first told me that the ELCA was considering ordaining homosexuals, my gut reaction was "hell no." Like a good boy, though, I caught myself and decided to check what the Bible said about the issue.
The Bible is almost mute on the issue of ordination of pastors. Aside from the strict rules set out in the Pentateuch, there are very few guidelines on the issue. The Pentateuch's rules are inapplicable today as it is impossible to trace back anyone's ancestry to Aaron for starters. In The Ritual Process, Victor Turner makes a keen observation that the charismatic leaders of religious groups (Jesus, Buddha, St. Francis, etc) are often horrible organizers. The organizing comes from one or more structurally adept disciples. In the case of Christianity, this job falls on Peter and Paul. Turning to Jesus's own words, it is difficult to find direction concering the church in his absence. I was only able to find Jesus's warning of those who would come after him saying "Look here! Look there!" and not all of them would be true teachers. The way to tell true teaching from false teaching is to look at the fruit that they bear. The teaching that bears good fruit is true. I must admit that I don't see how ordaining homosexuals would bear bad fruit, but I will address that a bit more later on.
Since the Bible is silent on the subject of organization, I next looked for sections on homosexuality. As many are well aware, Leviticus speaks quite strongly against homosexuality. Undoubtedly, many of those against the ELCA's decision will point to Leviticus 18 and 20 as proof that homosexuals should not be ordained. Yet they will most likely skip over the same passage that states the punishment for homosexuality is death. If we are going to accept Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals should not be ordained, we must also accept that those same homosexuals should be put to death. That is obviously not an option, thus citing Leviticus in support of a denial of ordination to gays is a bit problematic.
The last point I would like to make concerning the Bible and this issue, and in my opinion the strongest argument to support the ELCA's decision, is that the Bible establishes sin and not-sin. Any human thought or action falls into one or the other category. There is either something that is sinful or something that isn't sinful. We certainly do not expect pastors to be sinless. Christian doctrine is almost uniform in stating that humans are sinners. A person need not be sinless in order to be ordained. The only way I can imagine using homosexuality as a deal-breaker for ordination is to consider it sui generis. For those against the decision, there must be three categories instead of two: sin, not-sin, and homosexuality. There simply is no scriptural basis for this argument.
Now I'll return to the good/bad fruit idea. Many may argue that homosexuality is inherently bad fruit. I am not one of them. Functionally speaking, what is societally important in a relationship is its monogamy. Heterosexually monogamous relationships are important for society because they bear offspring and provide the stability needed for raising those children. Homosexual monogamy may not produce offspring, but it provides the same stability needed for a healthy relationship. In other words, the monogamy of a relationship should be the priority.
This is not a soap box issue for me. I believe the ELCA made the right decision. But what bothers me the most is that those who disagree with the decision are using ideology to argue against it over theology. If the Bible is the book on which Christianity is based, let's use it. If someone has an argument against the decision that is based on scripture, I am sincerely interested in hearing it.
EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that Romans 1 deals with homosexuality, but not as it relates to ordination. It seems even Paul himself viewed homosexuality sui generis. As I mentioned before, there is no scriptural basis for this (other than Paul's own assertion). Let us remember that Paul never met Jesus and that his word is human. Lutherans are Christians--not Paulians. It is also worth considering the fruit that the teaching of Romans 1 would bear. And it would most certainly not be good fruit. While Paul stops short of ordering the execution of homosexuals (among others) he clearly wishes death upon them. That is most assuredly bad fruit. There are times when even Paul himself does not meet Jesus's rubric for right teaching.
For those in the dark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has recently voted to accept the ordination of homosexuals in active, monogamous relationships. Previously, homosexuals could be ordained only if they remained celibate.
As you can imagine, this has split the church. While many people agree with the national assembly's decision (and some of those who agree actually surprised me), a sizeable minority disagree with the decision--and many of them vehemently. While I have heard many reasons against the ordination of gays in active, monogamous relationships, all of these reasons have been ideological. I have yet to hear a well thought out theological argument against it. I hope I do, though.
More full disclosure--I am not a theologian. I'm just a dude. I am, however, a sola scriptura dude. When the pastor of my church first told me that the ELCA was considering ordaining homosexuals, my gut reaction was "hell no." Like a good boy, though, I caught myself and decided to check what the Bible said about the issue.
The Bible is almost mute on the issue of ordination of pastors. Aside from the strict rules set out in the Pentateuch, there are very few guidelines on the issue. The Pentateuch's rules are inapplicable today as it is impossible to trace back anyone's ancestry to Aaron for starters. In The Ritual Process, Victor Turner makes a keen observation that the charismatic leaders of religious groups (Jesus, Buddha, St. Francis, etc) are often horrible organizers. The organizing comes from one or more structurally adept disciples. In the case of Christianity, this job falls on Peter and Paul. Turning to Jesus's own words, it is difficult to find direction concering the church in his absence. I was only able to find Jesus's warning of those who would come after him saying "Look here! Look there!" and not all of them would be true teachers. The way to tell true teaching from false teaching is to look at the fruit that they bear. The teaching that bears good fruit is true. I must admit that I don't see how ordaining homosexuals would bear bad fruit, but I will address that a bit more later on.
Since the Bible is silent on the subject of organization, I next looked for sections on homosexuality. As many are well aware, Leviticus speaks quite strongly against homosexuality. Undoubtedly, many of those against the ELCA's decision will point to Leviticus 18 and 20 as proof that homosexuals should not be ordained. Yet they will most likely skip over the same passage that states the punishment for homosexuality is death. If we are going to accept Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals should not be ordained, we must also accept that those same homosexuals should be put to death. That is obviously not an option, thus citing Leviticus in support of a denial of ordination to gays is a bit problematic.
The last point I would like to make concerning the Bible and this issue, and in my opinion the strongest argument to support the ELCA's decision, is that the Bible establishes sin and not-sin. Any human thought or action falls into one or the other category. There is either something that is sinful or something that isn't sinful. We certainly do not expect pastors to be sinless. Christian doctrine is almost uniform in stating that humans are sinners. A person need not be sinless in order to be ordained. The only way I can imagine using homosexuality as a deal-breaker for ordination is to consider it sui generis. For those against the decision, there must be three categories instead of two: sin, not-sin, and homosexuality. There simply is no scriptural basis for this argument.
Now I'll return to the good/bad fruit idea. Many may argue that homosexuality is inherently bad fruit. I am not one of them. Functionally speaking, what is societally important in a relationship is its monogamy. Heterosexually monogamous relationships are important for society because they bear offspring and provide the stability needed for raising those children. Homosexual monogamy may not produce offspring, but it provides the same stability needed for a healthy relationship. In other words, the monogamy of a relationship should be the priority.
This is not a soap box issue for me. I believe the ELCA made the right decision. But what bothers me the most is that those who disagree with the decision are using ideology to argue against it over theology. If the Bible is the book on which Christianity is based, let's use it. If someone has an argument against the decision that is based on scripture, I am sincerely interested in hearing it.
EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that Romans 1 deals with homosexuality, but not as it relates to ordination. It seems even Paul himself viewed homosexuality sui generis. As I mentioned before, there is no scriptural basis for this (other than Paul's own assertion). Let us remember that Paul never met Jesus and that his word is human. Lutherans are Christians--not Paulians. It is also worth considering the fruit that the teaching of Romans 1 would bear. And it would most certainly not be good fruit. While Paul stops short of ordering the execution of homosexuals (among others) he clearly wishes death upon them. That is most assuredly bad fruit. There are times when even Paul himself does not meet Jesus's rubric for right teaching.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Myth of the Egalitarianism of Opinion
This topic came up as I was reading "Religion and Alienation" by Gregory Baum. He mentions in passing how, in modern egalitarian society, people feel empowered by the idea that "all Men are created equal." While I wholeheartedly agree with this statement (as evidenced by previous blogs), modern society has made the jump from "all Men" to "the opinions of all Men" being created equal. This is an inaccurate and dangerous concept.
While all Men are truly equal and should have the same rights across the board, it is downright silly to view the opinions of all Men as being equal. To suggest that the technical opinion on John Coltrane of a law school graduate is equal to a music school graduate is ludicrous. This analogy could be substituted with any combinations of educational level and subject matter. In modern society, the distribution of labor has become more and more compartmentalized. The result is a higher and higher degree of specizliation among each individual in society.
I found a good example on Google books speaking directly to this point. "Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others" by Richard Foley is an epistemlogical look on the subject at hand. He begins by pointing to John Locke, who, in an age where clerical authority was deemed the final answer, called on idividuals to decide their own opinion in defferance to the clerical elite. Foley accurately points out that the society in the time of Locke is not completely analogous to modern society. The questions Locke was calling on individuals to ponder were nowhere near as complex or small in technical scope as ours today.
Foley realizes the importance of the society at large having a say in technical matters. To bridge the gap between the vox populi and the technical experts, Foley suggests it is important for individuals to "form credible opinions about the overall workings of the system that produces specialized knowledge claims." I think we've got a pretty good grasp on this. We are able to ascertain, when we put our minds to it, the sort of person or group of people that come out with a scientific claim. There are various "watchdogs" that are looking into the source of research funding to see if it affected the result of the research, etc.
Foley next points out that modern science is its own corrector. With such a heavy emphasis placed on reproducable experiments and peer reviewed journals, the general public can rest assured that even if mistakes are made, they will sooner or later be corrected. This is all under the caveat that science will be able to continue functioning freely without censorship, etc.
When considering the most important topics at hand that have an expert opinion, I doubt there is any more important than global climate change. Everyone and their dog has an opinion on global climate change; yet few of us even approach the level of technical knowledge needed to form an expert opinion on the subject. Anyone who took a high school chemistry class is (hopefully) able to understand the process behind the "green house effect," regardless if they believe it is happening or not. The fact that it CAN happen is what is important to establish.
Heading to http://www.ipcc.ch/ anyone with internet access can read for themselves the report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This organization was sponsored by the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. This organization does not conduct their own research, but serves as a clearinghouse for any research done on global climate change. Here we have a body that provides all the checks and balances Foley mentions when forming expert opinions on technical matters. The first report from the IPCC in 1990 stated that "certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface."
Now we arrive at the unfortunate point where this all-too-important topic becomes political. Why on Earth the discussion of whether Mankind has an effect on the environment and thus climate is beyond me. But it unfortunately has happened and become so divisive it makes almost any discussion on the topic impossible.
Now the whole point this post is getting at is: if there are people with Ph.D's doing years worth of research in a field requiring such intense specialization, and these people are coming up with their opinion that it is probable that Mankind is influencing the Earth's climate in a way that could cause irreparable harm, then who the **** are we to disagree? Sure, you could point to the minority of scientists who say that it is impossible, even with all the forests we're chopping down and the sub-$2000 cars that are now available, and the tons of solid waste floating in the ocean between California and Hawaii, that Manking isn't effecting the environment in any detrimental way. I'm sure these scientists have equal Ph.D's and similar numbers of years doing research in specialized fields. So let's agree that there are some scientists on each side.
Now let's return for a second to how science does it's job--it hypothesizes, conducts experiments, and then analyzes the results. What, exactly, would the experiment be to test the hypothesis "Mankind does NOT effect global climates"? Is it "let's wait 50-100 years and see what happens"? I think we can all see the danger in that idea.
Now let's imagine for a second we pluck 100 of these specialists in global climate, and we say "those who think Mankind is causing climate change stand on the left side of the room, those who don't stand on the right." And we end up with 50 scientists on the left and 50 on the right. Then what do we do?
Well the answer seems obvious. If we act based on the opinions of those who believe Man IS causing climate change, then we make changes in energy production and use. We act on deforestation. We become STEWARDS (yes, for those religious people out there--you are commanded to take care of this Earth!) of the environment. And climate change does NOT occur and the tree huggers say "we saved the Earth!" and the rest say "nothing would have happened anyway!" and all is right with the world.
If we act based on the opinions of the scientists who say Man is NOT causing climate change, then we maintain the status quo. We keep going through oil as if it were a renewable resource. We continue to destroy forest. And two possiblilties arise: everything goes on as normal and the tree huggers hide their heads in shame, or . . ..
There seems only one logical choice regardless of anyone's individual opinion OR the scientists expert opinion.
(Google Books link to Foley's work: http://books.google.com/books?id=eyRHnj2xYjIC&vq=opinion&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Amazon.com link http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Oneself-Cambridge-Studies-Philosophy/dp/052103910X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248022177&sr=8-1 )
While all Men are truly equal and should have the same rights across the board, it is downright silly to view the opinions of all Men as being equal. To suggest that the technical opinion on John Coltrane of a law school graduate is equal to a music school graduate is ludicrous. This analogy could be substituted with any combinations of educational level and subject matter. In modern society, the distribution of labor has become more and more compartmentalized. The result is a higher and higher degree of specizliation among each individual in society.
I found a good example on Google books speaking directly to this point. "Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others" by Richard Foley is an epistemlogical look on the subject at hand. He begins by pointing to John Locke, who, in an age where clerical authority was deemed the final answer, called on idividuals to decide their own opinion in defferance to the clerical elite. Foley accurately points out that the society in the time of Locke is not completely analogous to modern society. The questions Locke was calling on individuals to ponder were nowhere near as complex or small in technical scope as ours today.
Foley realizes the importance of the society at large having a say in technical matters. To bridge the gap between the vox populi and the technical experts, Foley suggests it is important for individuals to "form credible opinions about the overall workings of the system that produces specialized knowledge claims." I think we've got a pretty good grasp on this. We are able to ascertain, when we put our minds to it, the sort of person or group of people that come out with a scientific claim. There are various "watchdogs" that are looking into the source of research funding to see if it affected the result of the research, etc.
Foley next points out that modern science is its own corrector. With such a heavy emphasis placed on reproducable experiments and peer reviewed journals, the general public can rest assured that even if mistakes are made, they will sooner or later be corrected. This is all under the caveat that science will be able to continue functioning freely without censorship, etc.
When considering the most important topics at hand that have an expert opinion, I doubt there is any more important than global climate change. Everyone and their dog has an opinion on global climate change; yet few of us even approach the level of technical knowledge needed to form an expert opinion on the subject. Anyone who took a high school chemistry class is (hopefully) able to understand the process behind the "green house effect," regardless if they believe it is happening or not. The fact that it CAN happen is what is important to establish.
Heading to http://www.ipcc.ch/ anyone with internet access can read for themselves the report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This organization was sponsored by the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. This organization does not conduct their own research, but serves as a clearinghouse for any research done on global climate change. Here we have a body that provides all the checks and balances Foley mentions when forming expert opinions on technical matters. The first report from the IPCC in 1990 stated that "certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface."
Now we arrive at the unfortunate point where this all-too-important topic becomes political. Why on Earth the discussion of whether Mankind has an effect on the environment and thus climate is beyond me. But it unfortunately has happened and become so divisive it makes almost any discussion on the topic impossible.
Now the whole point this post is getting at is: if there are people with Ph.D's doing years worth of research in a field requiring such intense specialization, and these people are coming up with their opinion that it is probable that Mankind is influencing the Earth's climate in a way that could cause irreparable harm, then who the **** are we to disagree? Sure, you could point to the minority of scientists who say that it is impossible, even with all the forests we're chopping down and the sub-$2000 cars that are now available, and the tons of solid waste floating in the ocean between California and Hawaii, that Manking isn't effecting the environment in any detrimental way. I'm sure these scientists have equal Ph.D's and similar numbers of years doing research in specialized fields. So let's agree that there are some scientists on each side.
Now let's return for a second to how science does it's job--it hypothesizes, conducts experiments, and then analyzes the results. What, exactly, would the experiment be to test the hypothesis "Mankind does NOT effect global climates"? Is it "let's wait 50-100 years and see what happens"? I think we can all see the danger in that idea.
Now let's imagine for a second we pluck 100 of these specialists in global climate, and we say "those who think Mankind is causing climate change stand on the left side of the room, those who don't stand on the right." And we end up with 50 scientists on the left and 50 on the right. Then what do we do?
Well the answer seems obvious. If we act based on the opinions of those who believe Man IS causing climate change, then we make changes in energy production and use. We act on deforestation. We become STEWARDS (yes, for those religious people out there--you are commanded to take care of this Earth!) of the environment. And climate change does NOT occur and the tree huggers say "we saved the Earth!" and the rest say "nothing would have happened anyway!" and all is right with the world.
If we act based on the opinions of the scientists who say Man is NOT causing climate change, then we maintain the status quo. We keep going through oil as if it were a renewable resource. We continue to destroy forest. And two possiblilties arise: everything goes on as normal and the tree huggers hide their heads in shame, or . . ..
There seems only one logical choice regardless of anyone's individual opinion OR the scientists expert opinion.
(Google Books link to Foley's work: http://books.google.com/books?id=eyRHnj2xYjIC&vq=opinion&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Amazon.com link http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Oneself-Cambridge-Studies-Philosophy/dp/052103910X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248022177&sr=8-1 )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)