Unless you've been living under a rock this past week, you're aware that the ELCA voted to "open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships." It's (although the MSM is ) and there's still about it.
I haven't ever spoken explicitly on this blog about my views on GLBT issues, but I've hinted a couple of times that I am in fact pro-GLBT. And in the interest of full disclosure, had I been at the Churchwide Assembly as a voting member, I would have voted "For" both the and all four .1
But I'm not writing this post to defend my position or debate those who disagree with me. I'm writing it because my heart breaks at how quickly some of our brothers and sisters in Christ are willing to erect walls and an already fractured Protestant Christianity.
I was reading David Dark's yesterday, and this passage seemed to me particularly prescient with respect to the Churchwide Assembly and the reactions it has generated:
[The] refusal to question, to listen, and to think past a certain point has tragic consequences, easily discerned in the morning headlines. Self-described people of God are wreaking havoc in our world. They revere their own faith, but their irreverence for the faith of others is the loudest voice in the room... Instead, we're called to wrestle with a God more complex and more deeply affectionate toward all of life than whatever God we have in mind. Due reverence toward other people, in this sense, is a work that is never complete, a work that is ever before us. Anything less is bad worship, bad theology, and a plain old bad idea. As that very famous prayer involving debts and trespasses reminds us, the peace we make (or don't make) with others -- those who vote differently or believe differently or who happen to have been born in a different country -- is the same peace we have (or don't have) with our Maker. Peace with God and peace with others are never separate issues. When we say we love God while hating others, .2
That's it. I know for a fact that Matt Cleaver -- someone whom I deeply respect -- and I . But the fact is, we're called not only to love one another despite our disparate viewpoints but also to assist one another in the advancement of the kingdom of God, i.e., being the church. Wouldn't it be a massive waste of kingdom-time to spend all my energy defining myself or my church as pro-GLBT? Or, worse yet, anti-anti-GLBT?
As I watched the tweets and blog posts roll in last week during the Assembly, it took a concerted effort on my part to not be reactionary. It wasn't easy, because our sinful tendency is to vilify those with whom we disagree. But as Dark reminds us, "we're called to wrestle with a God more complex and more deeply affectionate toward all of life than whatever God we have in mind." In actually listening to those whose views differ from mine, I am able to see a broader picture of God's kingdom than my narrow vision normally allows. And for better or for worse, I believe that's a good thing.
So here's the deal: Because of its nature, the mainstream media is all over this issue. It's no exaggeration to say that the world is watching. What if we took the opportunity and ran with it? What if we showed the world how we have a rich and ancient knowledge of what it truly means to be bi-partisan,3 for we are one body in Christ?
In , Nadia Bolz-Weber concluded with these words:
So let’s again look to Christ and not ourselves because in the end there are no winners and losers, there is just what there has always been: the good news of Jesus Christ the Holy One of God. To whom else shall we go? He has the words of eternal life and offers all the inexplicable gift of his own self -- body, blood, and word. And bids all come and eat.
Amen.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post. Enjoy "meeting" you via Twitter during the ELCA Assembly.
How quickly people have acted? And they are the ones who are bringing about the splintering? Jake, please, this agenda has been pushed and pushed and Chilstrom said ten years ago that he was in favor of it but the ELCA wasn’t ready for it. What did he mean by that? That it would bring a split. So, the only point here is that the Assembly judged the ECLA was ready for. But that flies in the face that they knew it would be a close vote.
What did you think the people who have been fighting this year after year were going to do, change their minds all of the sudden?
Hey dude, yeah I guess the cat is out of the bag that we're not on the same page on this issue. At least now people can't say we only read blogs of people who stroke our ego because we all agree about stuff (I've had people comment stuff like that on my blog).
I'm totally with you on where this issue belongs in terms of priority. The main question facing the church is an issue of mission and ecclesiology, not necessarily sexuality. I think there is more scriptural support for my view on ordination than there is for my view on sexuality, yet if I were to bring up rethinking ordination at an Assembly, I would likely get slammed.
The sexuality issue will neither fix nor kill the church. We need to be rethinking mission. And even at this Assembly, when there was a lot of talk about transforming our churches into missional centers, we voted for a constitutional amendment requiring churches to consult with both the synod office and the appropriate churchwide office before they are authorized to hold regular worship services at alternative locations. Although I understand why the rule was changed, I think making these handcuffs for those who are thinking outside the box is completely ludicrous.
I actually was thinking about you this weekend. I think I'm going to email/facebook you soon. Be on the lookout.
Jake, thanks for posting on this. As a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) it is good to hear some reflection from inside the ELCA on this. Our denomination does not have the ability, within its polity, to make any such vote on this issue so we go on discussing and fighting over it with no way to reach any sort of decision, middle ground, etc. And so we have DOC churches who on one hand read the Bible literally and refuse to call gay pastors and on the other hand disregard the seeming Biblical injunction against female leadership and call women pastors to their pulpit. SInce we beleive in plurality when it comes to biblical interpretation, local congregations are free to deal with the GLBT issue as they feel called. For my part, I am in agreement with your post and I hope the Church can some day realize this issue was only so divisive because we chose to make it so, that sexual orientation is just part of the diversity of the human experience, and that we have so much more important work to do than fight over who people should be allowed to love.
great post!! It seems that God was making a statement concerning the decisions that were being reached at the ELCA gathering.
"sexual orientation is just part of the diversity of the human experience" yes but so is all behavior-good or bad. The rub comes because as individuals, and members of the body we are responsible to make judgements on behavior. We do not however judge a persons intrinsic worth. But to say that the issue should not divide is naive. If this is a moral issue, as some believe then it has to cause division. Your example of ordaining women is poor at best. The argument against GLGT is that it is immoral and that makes it quite different contextually from gender.
So again i think that it is quite silly to think that two people who are not in agreement can walk in unity. So the crux is whether the behavior is sinful or not. If one group thinks it is then unity is impossible.