for use in our congregation regarding our leaving the ELCA and the
issues which have mainly to do with scriptural authority.
Ralph
CLC (Christ Lutheran Church)---LCMC---ELCA---What does it all mean?
On March 14, 2010, the people of Christ Lutheran Church (CLC) voted
with a 98% majority (ratifying the first vote of 88%) to leave the
ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and join LCMC (Lutheran
Congregations in Mission for Christ). What does that change mean for
us as the people of Christ Lutheran? Some of you have mentioned that
your neighbors and friends have asked what the change means. What
can you tell them?
To begin we may need to say what our change to LCMC does NOT
mean. From the beginning of our discussions last fall, numerous
people stood up and said this does not mean the rejection of any
group of people. All people are welcome at CLC, as we are all
sinners in need of our savior Jesus Christ. Some will say that our
decision is a rejection of people who struggle with
homosexuality. But that is untrue and misses what the real issues
are. To say that this is a rejection of people is a tactic often
used to raise emotions and divert attention from the real
questions. To say that something is contrary to God's will is a
reflection on the behavior, never a rejection of people.
The foundational issues being debated in the church have been
developing for years and are not unraveled quickly, but this article
is a start.
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ is an association of
congregations and individuals who are:
* free in Christ;
* accountable to one another;
* rooted in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions;
* working together to fulfill Christ's Great Commission to go and
make disciples of all nations.
The LCMC constitution states that "We believe, teach, and accept the
canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired
Word of God and the sole authoritative source and norm of our
proclamation, faith, and life."
How is that different from the ELCA? The ELCA constitution states
that the ELCA accepts, "the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source
and norm of our proclamation, faith, and life." The difference is
the lack of the word "sole".
It would be unfair to say that the ELCA does not accept the Bible as
authoritative. Yet the recent decisions by the ELCA assembly in
August 2009 are a clear indication that how the Bible is used by the
ELCA has changed. That different view of Scriptural authority has
been developing for a long time with other authorities given equal or
at times greater status than Scripture.
In March of 2005, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson described the
problem to the bishops of the ELCA. In an ELCA press release he
mentions that there are 2 different methods of interpreting the Bible
(hermeneutics) at work in the ELCA. "Hanson said: Two
"hermeneutics" or paradigms are at work among the members of the ELCA
that make agreement difficult on scriptural and theological
matters. The Rev. Craig L. Nessan, academic dean and professor of
contextual theology, Wartburg Theological Seminary, an ELCA seminary
in Dubuque, Iowa, writes that there is a "traditional approach" and a
"contextual approach" in interpreting Scripture, both of which are
valid and irreconcilable, Hanson told the bishops. Similarly, Dr.
Marcus J. Borg, Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, writes that there are two irreconcilable "paradigms" in
which Christians differ in their understandings of the Christian
tradition and their interpretation of Scripture, creeds and the
confessions, he said. Hanson said he's heard people with different
understandings of Scripture and theology seeking to find a place for
their views in the sexuality recommendations. "Do we expect a
resolution to provide a bridge between two extremes?" Hanson asked
the bishops. "We Lutherans have come to say that when something is
'paradoxical' that we're going to live in the paradox at the foot of
the cross and not force ourselves to decide it with a vote."
But at the 2009 ELCA assembly, it was decided by a vote. The ELCA
Social Statement "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" that was adopted
in August 2009 described the different views of sexuality that are
present in the ELCA and stated that there was not a consensus among
our members. Yet the vote (which was to allow persons in lifelong,
monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as pastors) is a clear
endorsement of the "contextual approach" of understanding the Bible
mentioned above.
The terminology can be confusing. To understand the context in which
the Bible was written, or to know the surrounding context that a
verse of Scripture comes out of, is essential. But the "contextual"
approach mentioned by Bishop Hanson refers to the context of the
reader. According to that view, one's situation or context has a
strong effect on what the Bible means. So if the views of the world
have changed then that changes what Scripture has to say to
us. Bishop Hanson said in a town hall meeting on Dec 6. "The
understanding we have of homosexuality today does not seem to be
reflected at all in the context of the Biblical writers." The
assumption is that the Biblical writers express a primitive view
peculiar to their context that no longer applies to our modern context.
The other competing view referred to as the "traditional" view by
Bishop Hanson is often mistakenly portrayed as a narrow-minded,
literalistic, fundamentalist view. But those holding a traditional
view of Scripture know that the Bible includes sections that are to
be understood literally and those that are poetic or metaphorical.
Often attempts are made to discredit the "traditional" view.
* Things like the Old Testament prohibition on eating shellfish
are often presented as examples of Biblical teachings we no longer
follow. The New Testament recognizes that Jesus did not maintain all
of the Old Testament laws but those he did not endorse were laws like
those related to dietary and Sabbath restrictions and not basic moral
teachings. Jesus endorsed the moral law of the Old Testament and in
some cases even gave it more force. Jesus said, "You have heard that
it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in
his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28) What Christians follow of the Old
Testament laws does not depend on our own interpretations, but on
what Jesus said and how New Testament writers applied Jesus' teaching.
* Some people mention that Jesus had nothing to say about
homosexual behavior. But if Jesus had wanted to overrule the Old
Testament teaching on homosexual behavior he would have had to say
that clearly and often since it was a foundational understanding for
his Jewish people. And Jesus did clearly refer to God's creation of
humans as male and female. Jesus said, "Haven't you read," he
replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and
female." (Matthew 19:4)
* It is often claimed that Jesus' message contained only love and
acceptance. Yet he taught that God's love is both law and gospel for
our blessing and good. God's law is intended to maintain order in
our world, to show where we fail to keep God's law and therefore our
need for Christ as our savior, and to provide guidance as to what
God's intention is for us.
* Comparisons are often made between our view of women's roles
and how they have changed with our views of homosexual behavior. But
the clear difference is that Scripture presents several different
views of women's roles which allow us to decide how those varying
views apply, while wherever homosexual behavior is addressed it is
always seen as contrary to God's will. Dr. Robert Gagnon addresses
these and other Biblical questions in the article listed below.
Most importantly, this changing use of the Bible in the ELCA is
related not just to sexuality, but to the whole foundation of our
faith. Marcus Borg, the professor referred to in Bishop Hanson's
report above was a primary member of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus
Seminar was the group of scholars who concluded that only 18% of the
words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were probably spoken by
him. Things like the miracles of Jesus and the physical reality of
Christ's resurrection are dismissed as the words of ancient people
who misunderstood what happened. Scholars like Marcus Borg would say
that they take the Bible seriously, but they do so in a very
different way than Christians have for 2000 years, ways that discount
many of the basic beliefs of Christianity and the life of
Christ. Once you do that, questions of sexuality (and whatever
issues come next) are no longer decided on the basis of Scripture,
but on the basis of the powerful voices of the culture around us.
Timothy Wengert's article "Reflections on the ELCA Churchwide
Assembly and the Bible" illustrates the difference in the "2
hermeneutics" mentioned before. He writes, "Every command in
Scripture must be focused by this question, 'How does following this
commandment enhance love for God and neighbor?'", and he uses that as
a question that might lead to endorsing same-sex relationships. But
Wengert assumes that a same-sex relationship is a healthy thing and
that the Biblical commands against same-sex behavior come from some
basis that has no validity any more. The "traditional hermeneutic"
would say that the command against same-sex relationships comes out
of God's love, it is God's loving response, knowing that he created
humans with a male-female complementary nature that is what is right
for his people and is healthy, physically and emotionally. Often
ignored is the large body of scientific research that supports the
scriptural view of homosexual behavior, strongly pointing to same-sex
attraction being triggered by complex causes, often including sexual
abuse and psychological trauma.
Wengert's assumption that endorsing a same-sex relationship would be
the loving thing to do doesn't come from Scripture. It comes from
somewhere else--the culture--and is an example of where other
authorities are allowed to trump Scripture.
Rev. Kenneth Sauer, former bishop and chair of the ELCA Council of
Bishops, writes, "There are deep divisions over the fundamental
meaning of the Gospel, the authority of Scripture, and the purpose
and work of the Holy Spirit. The division reaches into congregations,
synods, and seminaries and agencies. When a voting member from
Wisconsin said at the assembly that the Scripture that guides the
opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a
much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now
believe, then it becomes clear that a divide exists."
People's positions are not always clear-cut. They may not fully
accept either the "contextual" or the "traditional" view. They may
be at various places across the spectrum. But the ELCA vote signals
that one view is now dominant in the leadership of the ELCA and other
changes are sure to follow.
So what does the CLC change from ELCA to LCMC mean? It is not really
a change at all from what CLC has always taught. It is the ELCA who
has made the changes and they are ones that focus attention on
sexuality because that is the present issue. But the changes of the
ELCA are foundational ones that will lead to many other changes as
time goes on.
Obviously, anyone is free to interpret Scripture as they please. The
ELCA is free to make the decisions they have made. But CLC has said
that that's not the direction we believe God is calling us to follow.
What do you say to neighbors and friends who ask what our decision to
join LCMC is all about? CLC is saying that we believe and teach "the
faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude
1:3). CLC is saying that we still love and pray for the well-being
of those who disagree with our decision. CLC is saying we wish our
ELCA friends well, and hope to work together in some ways in the
future. But we believe that the recent ELCA decisions signal a major
shift away from the authority of Scripture which undermines the
foundation of our Christian faith.
----------
No comments:
Post a Comment