Anxiety and Fear (Reflections on Advent 1C)

The Gospel lessons for the first Sunday in Advent have apocalyptic themes and in preparation for preaching I wandered around the internet to experience some of what people are writing about the chaos that is and is to come.  I couldn’t disconnect fast enough … and was strangely drawn to more.

The movie 2012 was as good a place to start as any, which soon led me to www.december212012.com.  Talk about dusting off all sorts of familiar themes.  In the mid-late 1980’s, I had an employer who started to talk about polar shifts and coming disasters.  He and another staff member quit their jobs, bought a farm in Iowa, equipped it for the coming catastrophe, and taught seminars about surviving the coming apocalypse.  He died never seeing the events he anticipated.  This website collects disparate “predictions” and pulls them all together. I’m a reasonable person, and I found myself starting to think about steps to survive the coming disaster.  (Prudent preparation makes sense and I have some emergency response items already stockpiled … more for our frequent power outages than anything else.)

I read about graffiti on the bathroom wall in a High School.  “It sucks to be in the class of 2013 … what’s the point?” (Referring to the “end of the world” in 2012.)

I encountered the Psalm 109:8 “prayer for President Obama” movement.  In case you haven’t heard about this one,  people are encouraged to pray “for” President Obama using Psalm 109:8 “May his days be few; may another seize his position.”  Plenty has been written in outrage about this prayer, especially in light of the verses which follow: “May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow.  May his children wander about and beg; may they be driven out of the ruins they inhabit.  May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil.  May there be no one to do him a kindness, nor anyone to pity his orphaned children.  May his posterity be cut off; may his name be blotted out in the second generation.”  I don’t believe that’s what Jesus meant when he instructed us to “pray for your enemies”.

From there my wandering spun completely out of control, and I felt like I was in a dark alley, late at night, ready to be mugged.  I got out of there as fast as I could.

Don’t people get that apocalyptic literature is a word of hope?  Oh, that’s right, if we are Biblical literalists then these are predictions of actual events rather than poetic imagry to describe a world that seems stacked against us!  The way I read Luke 21:25-36 gives me encouragement.  By listening to and following Christ, I don’t have to wring my hands at the sexually-charged singing/dancing of Adam Lambert, or drag myself into a survivalist camp armed to the teeth against the world.  God’s purposes will be fulfilled even in the face of those things which seem opposed to God.  In Christ’s power, we will live an alternative reality that flows alongside chaos.  The good news is that even though it seems as though evil wins … it cannot.  That theme is persistent in Luke/Acts.  Why, I think that it makes a lot of sense to invite people I care about into that same alternative reality.

Take a breath folks.  Christ is alive.  Now, let’s get busy living the alternative reality feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, and giving drink to the thirsty.

Pondering Pastor

ELCA Angst: Scriptural Authority

In August, the ELCA Churchwide Assembly voted to allow persons who were in publically-accountable life-long monogamous same-gender relationships (the acronym now in use to keep the terminology consistent is PALMS) to be on the leadership rosters of the church (pastors, diaconal ministers, and associates in ministry).  There are many who point to these decisions and make the claim that the ELCA has abandoned the “authority of scripture”.  The rhetoric is often quite shrill.

I’ve spent some time in scripture with an eye toward evaluating the response of those who claim the scriptural “high ground”.  I’ve taken my time in this process, and have invited members of the congregation I serve to consider scripture’s guidance and experience with what I think is a similar controversy described in the last 2/3 of the book of Acts.  I’ve been careful to ask these participants whether or not they believe (a) that the story has similarity to the conflict within the ELCA and (b) whether or not it is instructive for our life together.  We have participants who are anxious to rush to judgment about the Assembly votes themselves, but I try to gently steer them back to the questions at hand.  Thus far, the process has been very helpful.

Beginning at Acts 10, we learn about a vision that Cornelius has where an angel of God appears to him and instructs him to summon Simon Peter.  Cornelius is a “God-fearer”, which means that he is a Gentile believer who has attached himself to portions of Jewish law and practice, but who has not submitted to circumcision.  There is no indication in the text that Cornelius has any idea about the reason he would be instructed to summon Simon Peter.  Likewise, in these opening verses of the story, we have no clue what God has in store for Cornelius.  Meanwhile, as the messengers of Cornelius are approaching Simon Peter, this disciple of Jesus has a vision of his own, where a sheet is lowered from heaven with all sorts of animals on it and a voice commands Simon Peter to eat.  He objects and resists, because there are unclean animals on the sheet, but the voice declares, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane”.  The Spirit further commands Simon Peter to go with the Gentiles sent by Cornelius.

We found it interesting that the only possible reference to any other part of scripture declaring all food clean is Mark 7:14-19.  If that is indeed a place where Jesus declares all food clean, would not have Simon Peter, a disciple present at the event, have recalled it and known its significance before this new vision?  We also noted that there was a three-fold repetition of the instruction and still Simon Peter remains puzzled.

Simon Peter arrives at the home of Cornelius and specifically states that “it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile”.  Simon Peter further states, “but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)  That is different than what the voice stated in Acts 10:15, and demonstrates an expansion of the teaching of the vision.  One of our questions of the story thus far is whether or not Simon Peter’s expansion carries the weight of a new revelation by God.  If so, it has tremendous implications about that which the Old Testament calls an “abomination”.  We also note that by this time in the story, there are few clues as to what God is doing with this encounter.  Simon Peter makes a speech, and says “…anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him …”  and “… everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”  There appears to be both obedience (to what is not clear in this particular text) and trust/belief lifted here as important.

Then, in Acts 10:44-45 an absolutely astonishing thing happens.  The gift of the Holy Spirit falls upon those who are completely outside the bounds of who is acceptable according to Jewish thought and Jewish law (contained within scripture).  The significance of this cannot be minimized.  If we were wondering at all about what God’s purposes were in bringing together the orthodox of orthodox Simon Peter who had never eaten anything unclean and a Gentile dabbling in the faith but not really committed, here it is.  Note too that the astonishment is among the circumcised believers accompanying Simon Peter.  This is not a throw-away reference.  Time and cultural changes tends to make it hard for us to recognize the new thing God is doing here.

After the dramatic and powerful experience in Caesarea, Peter (and likely those with him) travel to Jerusalem where the decisions Simon Peter made were openly challenged.  Specifically at issue was the table fellowship with Gentiles, in other words, his willingness to even to be engaged with the Gentile Cornelius.  I love the way the text describes Simon Peter having to go through his experience “step by step”.  At the end of this description, Simon Peter says, “… who was I that I could hinder God?”  The challenge by the leaders in Jerusalem was that Simon Peter had made some poor decisions, and Simon Peter’s witness is that he was simply following the lead of God.

Hearing this account, the leaders in Jerusalem had no spoken objections.  We would expect the matter now to be settled.  We also noted that there is “relief” sent to the believers living in Judea.  We will continue to see this theme throughout the rest of Acts, even when the controversy is not over.

The story of the controversy isn’t apparent again until Acts 13-14.  Following a speech by Paul in Antioch, there are some “Jews and devout converts to Judaism” (read all circumcised) who challenged Paul.  Paul defends the ministry to Gentiles, but is driven out by the Jews.  The same thing happens in Iconium.

In this part of the story, I don’t read “Jews” as “Jewish people” as much as I do “faithful people of God who hold on to what scripture says is the only faithful way of inclusion into the faith, that is, circumcision”.  At stake for them was the adherence to the law as revealed to Moses.  They were protecting the traditions and scripture from those who were claiming a new revelation from God that contradicted more than 3000 years of God’s history with God’s people.  I’m sure they held these teachings very passionately and were absolutely convinced of their continuing validity.  However, participants in our study made the observation that if they were right, then the Christian Church developed completely in error and the witness of Paul is completely wrong.

In Acts 15-16, the controversy has grown so intense that a consultation occurred with the leaders in Jerusalem.  A compromise is worked out.  James orders that the Gentiles do not have to be circumcised, but need to be obedient to the law in some minimal ways, including abstinence from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.  This remains an uneasy compromise for many, and there is lack of trust that even this compromise is right or will work.

What was he thinking?!?  On the heals of this consultation, Paul circumcises Timothy!  Now, Timothy’s mother was Jewish and his father was a Greek (Gentile), but there is a perfect opportunity to assert the freedom granted by the consultation.  Yet, one might say, Paul was either respecting the bound conscience of the Jewish believers in the area or was tired of the conflict or had more important things to focus on.  Our group is not to this point yet, but I’m anxious to learn what they make of this part of the story.

In Acts 21, Paul is arrested.  Paul has gone back to Jerusalem, where people of the circumcision party are bound and determined to silence this one who is contaminating the true faith.  They attempt to kill him, but soldiers (Gentiles) arrest him and save him.  Paul’s story continues eventually to Rome where he is in house arrest.  Note that this conflict is the very thing that spread the Gospel to Rome through Paul.  The witness of the author of Acts is that this very conflict is used by God to spread the Gospel.

I notice that in the midst of the controversy, with its center in Jerusalem and to a certain degree with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, Paul never suggests the withholding of offerings or “relief” to the church and the people of Jerusalem.  He always encourages the Gentiles to give generously to the very people who would exclude them from full participation in Christianity if they do not submit to the ritual of circumcision.

I don’t claim to know what God is doing in the ELCA.  Our current conflict seems overwhelming at times.  I watch people who saw themselves as brothers and sisters in Christ in July, now name-calling in September.  I’m of the firm belief that the story of the conflict between the circumcision party and the god-fearers in Acts (and in Galatians) can be instructive for us as we seek to find ways to live with our differences.  Faith is often shaped in the times when God seems absent and there is not the clarity we desire.

Pondering Pastor

One Month post ELCA Churchwide Assembly

It has now been about a month since the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly where the Assembly voted to allow congregations to recognize same gender relationships and allow to the roster those in same gender relationships.  (The actual language is more nuanced than this, but finding shortcut language that is accurate is quite a challenge yet.)  There are congregations and individuals reeling from these decisions, congregations and individuals celebrating these decisions, and the majority of congregations and individuals attempting to make sense of these decisions in our life together.

I’ve been putting together some frequently asked questions about these decisions as they apply to the congregation I serve, and while this is not in its final form, I’m posting it here.

Comments are encouraged, but will be moderated.

Frequently Asked Questions

Churchwide Assembly decisions made related to human sexuality

Q.  Can we talk to a pastor about our questions?

A. Absolutely!  Please do!  In speaking with people, we listen carefully and respond to what you are looking for.  Do you want to voice opposition and find ways to still be a part of the congregation?  We do that.  Do you want to celebrate the decision?  We do that.  Do you want to explore the perspective different from yours in a safe environment?  We do that.  Your position is respected, honored, and important for us to know as we serve as pastors of this congregation.

Q.  Shouldn’t the pastors take a firm definite position in these matters?

A. I do.  I believe that the believer’s encounter and wrestling with scripture should impact faith.  I experience scripture to be inviting us to consider the paradoxes of life.  I experience scripture to be knocking us away from trusting in our own conclusions and encountering God in some new ways.  Therefore, one of my goals is to assist those wrestling with scripture to see where it might be leading them.  This will have an impact far beyond this limited topic.  Frankly, human sexuality is not central to the Christian faith.

Q.  How could the ELCA go against the clear teaching of scripture about homosexuality?

A. The reality is that there is not “clear teaching” in scripture about homosexuality.  Faithful Biblical scholars and readers reach different conclusions about what the very few passages of the Bible that mention same-gender relationships actually mean.  Some argue that they mean that all homosexual acts are forbidden.  Some argue that they mean that abusive same-gender relationships are forbidden.  Some argue that other portions of scripture set aside the prohibitions.  Still others argue that the words and culture into which these passages were written do not speak at all of lifelong, monogamous, committed same-gender relationships.  We have to determine the appropriateness of all these interpretations while realizing that all of us make interpretations about the appropriateness and applicability of portions of scripture.  No one comes to scripture without a particular lens through which scripture is seen.  Even those who adhere to the “plain reading” of scripture make different interpretive decisions.

Q.  With such different interpretations, how can we trust anything in the Bible?  Doesn’t this lead to relativism?

A. These differences have always existed, and we seem to have been able to trust the Bible thus far.  Some have decided that the Bible is a rule book.  Some have decided the Bible is a “love story” between God and humanity.  Some have decided that the Bible is a historically factual event without any kind of error. Some have decided the Bible is a guide to opening us to the experience of the in-breaking Kingdom of God.  Each of these initial assumptions brings with it different perspectives that are of value to the others.  I’m a firm believer that we learn best about God when we are in conversation with others who experience God differently than we do, and are therefore stretched in our faith.  When I say I trust the Bible, I say that from my basic understanding about what is the Bible.

Q.  With such different interpretations, how can I stay in the ELCA, or this congregation?

A. It pains me to know that people are wrestling with these kinds of decisions.  I believe that people have been called into this congregation to share the gifts God has given them.  The purpose of the church is not to find uniformity, but “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12-13)  We need the voices of those who celebrate this decision and we need the voices of those who reject this decision so that we can learn from one another.  What is not helpful is to “draw a line in the sand” without engaging in that dialogue and learning.  Having said that, I greatly respect a friend of mine who has committed to staying in the ELCA so that he can have voice and influence toward the eventual overturning of this decision.  He says publically that if he leaves, he loses that prophetic voice.

Q.  What is this about “bound conscience”?

A. The Churchwide Assembly voted to encourage everyone in this church to respect the bound consciences of one another.  This means that we commit to honor the perspective that the other person brings to these concerns, and not to belittle, condemn, minimize, or bear false witness to those perspectives.  This is the hardest part of what the Churchwide Assembly voted to do, and is already the most widely abused.  Our culture rapidly moves to violation of the 8^th Commandment whenever we disagree.  Remember Luther’s explanation of the 8^th Commandment.  “We are to fear and love God so that we should not tell lies about our neighbor, nor betray, slander, or defame them, but should defend them, speak well of them, and interpret all that they do in the best possible light.”

Q.  Can the ELCA change its mind?

A. It is possible, but I suspect not likely.  The greatest challenge to reversing these decisions is a practical one.  Many who would advocate reversal are contemplating leaving the ELCA, meaning that they will not have a vote.  Lutheran Core is proposing a non-geographical Synod whereby congregations opposed to these decisions could remain in the ELCA and have influence.  That is the greatest hope for those who oppose the decisions made by the Churchwide Assembly.

Q.  Will our pastors now start performing same gender blessings?

A. As I understand the polity of the ELCA, we are pastors called by a congregation to serve a congregation.  We are pastors of the ELCA, but are not “independent contractors” who perform ceremonies outside the authority of the congregation.  In fact, we are not ordained until we have a call to a congregation or other ministry.  The ELCA Churchwide Assembly decisions applied specifically to congregations and did not authorize individual pastors to do whatever they wish.  Any requests for such blessings would be vetted through the Church Council, at least in this congregation.  That does not preclude a pastor working to achieve that approval if deemed appropriate.

Q.  Does the Bible offer any guidance as we try to find a way to live together with these differences?

A. Absolutely!  Pastor Kathy’s friend Carla pointed out 1 Samuel 8 to her the other day.  It is the story about God disapproving of the people choosing a king for Israel.  God lays out all the justification for not having a king, but then relents and allows them to choose a king even though God is against it.  God will use the circumstances for God’s purposes.  In the book of Acts (starting at about Chapter 10 and woven throughout the rest of Acts) we read the story of the intense conflict between the “circumcised believers” and the “god-fearers” about what is necessary for Gentiles to become Christians.  Eventually, the decision was made to allow baptized Gentiles to avoid circumcision if they “were circumcised in the heart” and agreed to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood and strangled animals, and from fornication.  This was an uneasy peace, eventually leading to the arrest of Paul.  I think there are important parallels between these events and our current reality.

Q.  What will our children be taught in Sunday School?

A. They will be taught the things that have always been taught.  I really don’t anticipate any real changes here.  Yes, in the older grades, the conversation may arise about same-gender relationships, (and have in the past) and I trust that our commitment to the bound consciences of one another will prevail.  Remember, my priority is the encounter with scripture and the resulting impact on faith, not some social agenda.

Q.  When can we as a congregation vote on whether or not we agree with these decisions?

A. There are no plans to put this forward to a vote.  The best way right now to signal your disapproval or approval is to have conversation with a pastor.  As we hear from people, we essentially “take the pulse of the congregation” and determine the best course of action based on that information.  If people do not share their concerns with us, then we have no real way to gauge the level of concern.  I promise, I’ll observe the 8^th commandment in my listening and responding.

Pondering Pastor