Recently Anne Rice announced she's quitting Christianity. While I can't find the entirety of her statement, here is what the news included:
"In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. . .. In the name of ... Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."
I think it's obvious that Rice is working with a pretty inaccurate definition of "Christian." By what she says she obviously still clings to Christ and wants to lead a Christ-like life. Perhaps renouncing institutional religion or Roman Catholicism may have been more accurate, but there is still an interesting point to be made about "Christian."
The question "What is a Christian?" would get numerous responses from numerous people. Same with "Who is a Christian?" or "How can I tell if someone is a Christian?" So who defines "Christian"? Who decides who defines it? I would imagine the answer would be "society" but that simply regresses to "Who is society?" At the end, what we are dealing with is identity.
Sure, we like to think that we provide our own identity. We decide who we are. Yet there is no doubt that society/culture has a huge influence on determining who we are. From women being told they'll never be President to Nemo being told he can't do something because of his "lucky" fin, what people tell us about us influences what we think of ourselves.
So is Rice reacting in some way to what society/culture is telling her a Christian is? I say yes. Society/culture over the last several decades has defined "Christian" as the religious right. This is mainly imposed upon us through the media, but it also plays out in churches, work, and families. It's been a great PR battle that conservative Christians have won. In the overwhelming majority of instances when "Christian" is used in the media or in conversation, the basic image we get is of the conservative Christian. I doubt many people would think of Dorothee Soelle, Martin Luther King Jr., or St. Francis.
But the religious left is also to blame for this narrow definition of "Christian." Liberal Christians have done just what Rice has done--abandoned the Christian identity. If asked "Are you Christian?" they may reply with "Well I'm spiritual but not religious" or "Well. . . yes, but I'm not THAT kind of Christian." There's been a sense of shame involved in admitting being a Christian for many liberal Christians. This means that the only voice available to balance out the image that the religious right is offering is silent. There is no group to counteract the predominant image of Christian identity.
That is why liberal Christians must reclaim "Christian." The goal is not to shift the Christian identity to the left so that it excludes the right. That would be just as inaccurate and unfair as the status quo. What is desired is a broadening of Christian identity so that it includes the right AND left and everyone in between.
Liberal Christians must answer the question with pride: "Yes, I am a Christian." No qualifiers. No shame. If the conversation continues, they can feel free to add "but I am for birth control use" or "I'm against institutional violence of any kind" or "I'm for taxing the richer half of society in order to provide for the poor."
Reform will never come from outside of the Church. Leaving "Christianity" and then expecting it to somehow "miss" you and become more inclusive for you will never happen. Reclaiming "Christian" and reforming from inside the Church WILL work. This has been done and is being done now. And my same advice goes to conservatives who feel the Church is becoming too liberal--don't leave. We won't miss you. Stay and claim "Christian."
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
7 Months in the Making!
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)