tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post5147558043159343629..comments2023-10-16T05:31:12.169-07:00Comments on Pub Ponderings: While we're at it, let's talk about divorce tooPastor Erikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04018584378292363863noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-33694814719347278322009-09-25T21:18:04.361-07:002009-09-25T21:18:04.361-07:00I am a little disturbed at how easily some people ...I am a little disturbed at how easily some people fall into the clericalism of "it's ok for lay people but not for clergy -- they are called to a higher standard." So divorced and remarried people can come to church, but they can't be pastors, because pastors are called to a "higher standard." Nope, all of us are called to the same high standard, and all of us are saved by grace through faith, alone.<br /><br />There are two sides to the clericalism standard, and I'm not sure you really want to go there.Diane M. Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07749136181846671327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-15522182132496030972009-09-09T06:32:39.025-07:002009-09-09T06:32:39.025-07:00First off, Erick, I'm digging your style. I l...First off, Erick, I'm digging your style. I live in the Seattle area and want to buy you a beer when you're over here.<br /><br />I've tried to read all of this, but I'm finding part of it difficult to interpret, mostly because I don't come from a lutheran worldview.<br /><br />Am I hearing your primary argument to be that because the church doesn't make a big deal out of divorce that it shouldnt also make a big deal about homosexuality?<br /><br />It was my understanding that the vote that took place was simply a statement that "we can all disagree" regarding this issue. Would the ELCA take a similar stance with Alcoholism, obesity, and involvement in producing pornographic films on the side. (i just threw that one in on the side for fun. Forgive me as i jest. But that would cause a firestorm if a pastor was found out to be an international porn star on the side. :)<br /><br />I read your story about the couple that you lambasted with your sermon regarding divorce. I've done stupider things with the pulpit, bible interp, and such. <br /><br />Is it possible to "'uphold' the law" and at the same time be loving and accepting of others? Is there a standard of conduct for those who lead the church? From what I'm reading, this ruling from the elca opens leadership positions to all irregardless of sexual orientation. I'm saying, is it possible to say we believe that homosexuality is a deviation from the good and healthy and appropriate way, the same way that divorce is a deviation. Aren't these two different issues? Qualifications to be a part of church and qualifications to lead and teach the church?<br /><br />I've now read a bunch of your stuff. I like your style but dont agree with all of your points. I'm curious are there ELCA peeps who disagree with you but who have wrestled with the issue thoroughly and honestly as you have. Do you understand people who disagree with your points and view this all as a gamechanger and need to leave the elca, quietly and lovingly? Or if they leave are they a bigot or have bigoted views? <br /><br />Again, I apologize if I'm oversimplifying this issue, but I have to in order to fit it into my small brain. :) Thanks!Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-31381222462578537362009-09-08T08:57:24.722-07:002009-09-08T08:57:24.722-07:00Erik,
Happy Labor Day Tuesday!
As I follow thi...Erik,<br /> Happy Labor Day Tuesday! <br /><br />As I follow this conversation, two thoughts come to mind: <br /><br />1) The Church is merciful. Even without rebranding sinfulness the Church has structures that allow her to work with the inevitable brokeness of her members. I don't think anyone is out to punish anyone else in this debate (though that said, I think we do need to actively preach against 'reparative' therapy, which seems to me to be a wash) The Church shouldn't punish divorced people or gay and lesbian people. <br /><br />2) I think a big part of the cognitive dissonance we're experiencing comes from what the Church can do. We know we can bless marriages. We don't know, or have concensus about whether we can bless same-sex relationships. Marrying divorced people was a relatively easy leap after we got over the country-club social stigma, since we already knew how to marry men and women. Are the people entering into such a marriage sinful, sure, but no more so than anyone else (remember what Jesus said about adultery and wandering eyes...). The rub, and maybe this is unfair, but who ever said life was fair, is that we as Church, ecumencially and within our denomination, don't know how to bless same-sex unions. Some of us think that the Word forbids us from doing so, some of don't see such a prosciption. <br /><br />The Church is always going to be loving and ,heck, facilitating unrepentant sinners. The question is how she will do that. <br /><br />JoshJosh Elliott-McGuffiehttp://lajosh.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-89635742544044063172009-09-08T07:36:38.962-07:002009-09-08T07:36:38.962-07:00I quoted your comment on this issue that you poste...I quoted your comment on this issue that you posted on the Carl Braaten piece on my own blog.<br /><br />I offered additional commentary regarding Braaten:<br /><br />"Presently, Braaten argues that ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson is wrong, our ELCA unity is not in Christ, as Hanson suggests, but in our Reformation era confessions. Braaten longs for the good old days of the Augsburg Confession (1530), but then he muses that even the Reformation was too radical: “When the first Lutherans lost the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church, it had no sure authority to put in its place.” Too much democracy, that’s the problem. Too much enlightened thinking. Too much reason and rationality. Ah, if the Lutherans only had an authoritative, top down Magisterium like the Catholics, this slippery slope modernism would be held in check. Why, just look at who the ELCA’s ecumenical friends are these days! The Episcopalians, the UCC, the RCA, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists. Mainline Protestants all."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-3268111542271499422009-09-07T16:45:57.734-07:002009-09-07T16:45:57.734-07:00Peter-
I think you are right, that divorce is dif...Peter-<br /><br />I think you are right, that divorce is different. A horrible act consigned to the past that nobody wants to ever have happen once let alone repeatedly. But what Jesus talked about as adultery was remarriage after divorce. Divorce may be a decision in the past, but remarriage is one that continues. <br /><br />According to this way of reading the Bible, every sexual encounter a divorced person has that is not with his (former) wife is adulterous. Follow that logic, and a divorced and remarried pastor is continuing to sin, an unrepentant adulterer. I'm just trying to figure out how a Christian person can follow one way of interpreting the Bible on one issue and a different way on the other.Pastor Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018584378292363863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-40592640262339494432009-09-03T07:16:52.289-07:002009-09-03T07:16:52.289-07:00I'm just stumbling on this blog in order to ca...I'm just stumbling on this blog in order to catch reaction of elca people regarding the recent decision. I am a Christian, and actually a former Assemblies of God/Pentecostal pastor. However, I come from a rich heritage of Lutherans. I find myself becoming more and more Lutheran in my theology. (Maybe I'm going back to my roots?) But this recent decision is very concerning to me. <br /><br />I didn't read all of the comments and post, but the gist of what I heard was what is the difference between divorce and homosexual relationships. Forgive me, if I've reduced it to this, but I thought I should post.<br /><br />I agree that the church should revisit the divorce question in relationship to clergy. However, I see one clear difference between divorce and a committed homosexual. I view divorce as a terrible act and homosexual sex as a terrible act. However, divorce is a decision that happens in ones past. Living in a committed homosexual relationship is a daily decision that one makes.<br /><br />I think the only way the comparison could be made is if a potential clergy member was asked in their interview, "do you plan to get a divorce?" If they said yes, then they would be disqualified. However, we all know this is not the case.<br /><br />IMO, everyone is welcome before God and in Worship irregardless of any faults. However, when we are talking clergy, there is a responsibilty of that clergy to live a noble lifestyle. Part of that lifestyle is sexual morality. Future divorces and homosexual sex disqualify someone from that opportunity.<br /><br />I'd love to see more discussion on this. Thanks!Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-74257825218369328192009-08-28T10:35:17.817-07:002009-08-28T10:35:17.817-07:00I wrote to long last time and it said it wouldn...I wrote to long last time and it said it wouldn't work, so here goes a short version. <br /><br />The ontological distinction between same-sex relationships and divorce and remarriage lies in the oft-maligned orders of creation. Read Althaus' wonderful little chapter in the middle of "The Ethics of Martin Luther". <br /><br />Only the first marriage between a woman and a man is an icon of the FIRST marriage between a woman and a man, which, before the fall, was created according to God's good pleasure and perfect will. Same-sex unions and re-marriages are broken icons, refracting and bending the image of Eden. <br /><br />That said: I believe both remarried heteros and partnered same-sex folk can live happy, whole, repentant, loving, fulfiling, societally-upbuilding lives - I have deep love and respect and indeed wouldn't be a pastor if if weren't for folk in such marriages and unions. <br /><br />Should folk in second marriages or same-sex unions serve as Pastors? The ecumenical concensus is NO. Who am I to disagree, my vote doesn't count as much as Augustine's. <br /><br />Can anything separate divored or unionised people from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord? NO! <br /><br />Josh (who prays his sins are forgiven) EMJosh Elliott-McGuffiehttp://lajosh.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-90592300199601140092009-08-26T15:11:37.497-07:002009-08-26T15:11:37.497-07:00The parallels are strong indeed, albeit some might...The parallels are strong indeed, albeit some might call divorce, remarriage, etc strawman arguments relative to cwa09. I think if we could get to the bottom of why some do not see the parallels, it might help a great deal with understanding on all sides.<br /><br />Just thinking out loud, it could be lack of experience. As concerns cwa09, how many have seen a young person being in the position of having to give up their loved one to accept the call to be a minister? As concerns divorce and remarriage, how many have been in the pastor or counselor seat, and dealt with the law/gospel implications head on with 2 real people in front of them.<br /><br />Its easy to grab onto the law in abstract, and state with authority this is scripture, this is what I must do, followed up by what seemed the right call to the Gospel. Yep, btdt, and the law does come back to whack one upside the head in a huge way.Ron Amundsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00499236427446909328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-85269579270945680392009-08-26T10:07:00.691-07:002009-08-26T10:07:00.691-07:00Eric where there is Law there is Gospel. The Law ...Eric where there is Law there is Gospel. The Law is this is really about intimcy right. The law here was double edged. They sinned by not drawing close to their spouse in a "broken" marriage that ended, just as we sin by not drawing close to our creator. The law that spills over from the rest of our lives needs to plead with us in our spiritual life to keep us more connected to God. It's a warning. The Gospel is that God is willing to forgive and draw near to us. The Challenge is for persons in a rocky spot in their marriage to draw close to God AND close to each other and commit to both relationships.<br /><br />Now I think the two questions at the base of this should have been: Is a monogamous homosexual relationship sin? And the follow up to that is if it is do we let unrepentant sinners in the ministry? For the record I don't think this conversation would have worked out being easy to act without love and judge people. This also leads to the question if we're kicking homosexuals out then we need to get rid of the perverts, the drunks, the fornicators, the theives...and then you come back to Jesus drawing a line in the sand and asking any of us without sin to cast the first stone.<br /><br />Oh and my kids are never having sex they're 6 and almost 2.<br /><br />Jonathan ZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-228151047056923282009-08-26T07:08:09.706-07:002009-08-26T07:08:09.706-07:00But, I know that my girls, try as we might to prot...But, I know that my girls, try as we might to protect and educate them, will mess up (they are Lutherans, after all). They are sinners like me (especially at bedtime) and if they come to me broken by a relationship that didn't live up to these standards, that's the time to embrace them with the love of their father, reassure them that God loves them, and help them put their lives back together (again, like the prodigal son). At that point to tell them merely how disappointed I am with them without the overwhelming embrace of love and grace is just cruel and a bad way to express the fullness of God's relationship with us. Is this easy? Hell no. But nobody said being a parent (or a Christian) was supposed to be.Pastor Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018584378292363863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-3922583111094650202009-08-26T07:08:01.818-07:002009-08-26T07:08:01.818-07:00But, Any Parent, you asked about my daughters, who...But, Any Parent, you asked about my daughters, who are very young. The prospect of sexually active teenage daughters fills me with terror. My advice to "Any Parent" with this sort of question would be to uphold this desire that God has for human relationships, to help them to see their growing sexuality as a gift from God that is meant to be used in ways that build trust and form deep and healthy relationships. I know too many teenagers (especially girls) who did not feel in their family (or in their church) that sort of deep value and that they were loved just as they are, and turned to this new found sexual "power" to win attention and affection through squandering this great treasure (to use the language parable of the prodigal son) only to find that it wasn't as fulfilling as they thought it was going to be. The harm to them wasn't punishment from God for breaking a law, but broken relationships (and in some cases a life long of emotional scars)--which is precisely what I believe God's laws and the laws of the state are meant to shield us from (in the 1st use of the law for you theologians). <br /><br />Any Parent, if my teenage daughter (or yours) were to come to me with this sort of a request, I would advise her (as the social statement suggests) to find the highest level of legal recognition possible for this relationship. In my state (Washington) the minimum age for marriage is 18, or 17 with parental consent (which she very likely would not get, at least from me). Younger than that requires an action by family court (which I would probably not support). If this were a same-gendered relationship, I'd advise the same, and if there were no such laws, it seems to me that at least the same high standards of marriage would apply (even if they were seeing a civil union). The teaching of the social statement is that sexual relationships outside of this lifelong covenant are hurtful, harmful, and against God's intention for human growth and love. Here's a bit from the social statement on that point:<br /><br />"This is why this church opposes non-monogamous,<br />promiscuous, or casual sexual relationships of any kind.<br />Indulging immediate desires for satisfaction, sexual or<br />otherwise, is to “gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians<br />5:16–19). Such transient encounters do not allow for trust in<br />the relationship to create the context for trust in sexual intimacy.<br />Such relationships undermine the dignity and integrity of<br />individuals because physical intimacy is not accompanied by the<br />growth of mutual self-knowledge. Absent the presence of<br />physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual trust and<br />commitment, such sexual relationships may easily damage the<br />self and an individual’s future capacity to live out committed<br />and trustworthy relationships. Fleeting relationships misuse the<br />gift of sexual intimacy and are much more likely to be unjust,<br />abusive, and exploitative." <br /><br />But even if such relationships were legal, I'd strongly advise my daughters to think beyond sexual desire, to all that an intimate relationship entails--what it means to live in a covenant relationship, how hard it is to do so, and the responsibilities that come with it. And I'll probably say to them (as my father-in-law said to me when I asked for his daughter's hand) that their partner better well be prepared to support them because college funding from dad dries up when she walks down the aisle (I was 20). Were we, even at 22 and 21, (after graduation, see) ready for this sort of life long commitment? Hardly. But by the grace of God, supportive communities of faith, and amazing families we have built our relationship on a solid ground of trust, mutual respect, and honor of the other. We intend to teach our daughters every single day through how we live together what this looks like so they can have a model for healthy families, healthy relationships, and healthy sexual expression.Pastor Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018584378292363863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-88128490769015263852009-08-26T07:07:22.754-07:002009-08-26T07:07:22.754-07:00First, friends, please add a name when you post to...First, friends, please add a name when you post to this blog (even if it is a fake one). It's very hard to have a loving conversation with "anonymous". I'd like to respond to the first "anonymous" so I'll call you "Any Parent":<br /><br />Any Parent, you wrote: "What do you tell the children, or better yet teenagers (maybe your daughters when they are 15, 16, 17) when they come to you and say they are in love, in a monogamous relationship with their boyfriend and want to have sex. It's okay for pastors to do it now, so why not me."<br /><br />This is really an example of what I was writing about where we create this false polarity between "law followers" and "law breakers". If you haven't already read the social statement itself (its not that long, especially if you have already slogged through this post) you will see that while it "looses" some teachings, it "binds" others and gives us a solid framework (gift and trust) with which to talk about human sexuality as it exists in the real world. Here's a bit from the section against cohabitation:<br /><br />"Because this church urges couples to seek the highest social and<br />legal support for their relationships, it does not favor<br />cohabitation arrangements outside of marriage. It has a special<br />concern when such arrangements are entered into as an end in<br />themselves. It does, however, acknowledge the social forces at<br />work that encourage such practices. This church also<br />recognizes the pastoral and familial issues that accompany these<br />contemporary social patterns...<br /><br />This church believes, however, that the deepest human longings<br />for a sense of personal worth, long-term companionship, and<br />profound security, especially given the human propensity to sin,<br />are best served through binding commitment, legal protections,<br />and the public accountability of marriage, especially where the<br />couple is surrounded by the prayers of the congregational<br />community and the promises of God."<br /><br />The effect of adding the sections on same-gendered relationships, as I see it, is to not to undermine the high standards Lutherans hold for marriage, but rather to allow congregations that choose to do so to hold same-gendered couples to the same standards we advocate for with heterosexual couples--meaning being against cohabitation and sex before marriage, against casual sexual encounters, and against divorce--while also recognizing (like I did) that a hard line is not always the way to communicate this or invite people into relationship with one another, with the church, and finally (and most importantly I think) with Jesus as their savior.Pastor Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018584378292363863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-3442476029459953952009-08-25T20:32:52.978-07:002009-08-25T20:32:52.978-07:00I asked this question to a friend of mine: what ma...I asked this question to a friend of mine: what manner of Biblical interpretation allows us to accept divorce and women who speak in church, but calls us to reject homosexuality? It seems that we have applied reason, experience, and other texts to re-interpret those texts addressing divorce and women speaking in church, so why not with this issue of homosexuality? Do we just pick and choose which texts we re-interpret and which texts we interpret only in their "plain sense"?<br /><br />My friend has yet to offer a response.Chris Duckworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15569502792071232013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-29281852850068206742009-08-25T18:28:29.208-07:002009-08-25T18:28:29.208-07:00Hey Holly, when you call someone who opposes GLBT ...Hey Holly, when you call someone who opposes GLBT clergy fundamentalist, is that because there is absolutely no scriptural backing whatsoever to do so? Since when do men and women's feelings get to trump scripture when they feel like it?<br /><br />I have a sense you are against wars and killing? What if the ELCA decided to have an eight year study and a "statement" finding that they can come up with some "living in the now" reason for supporting them, even though it goes against everything written in scripture, should we just be okay with it? Slippery slope huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-67816089335923220832009-08-25T17:41:36.180-07:002009-08-25T17:41:36.180-07:00Pastor Eric, Wow that was long but well worth the...Pastor Eric, Wow that was long but well worth the read. Your questions are the same ones I've been mulling over. There's another question that irks me some. When did part of Lutheranism become fundamentalist? Now maybe this is the fault of my growing up in the Metro-New York Synod ELCA and further back LCA, ULCA. I've attended many bible studies and adult forums and never ran into this theological view. My pastors were rooted in the historical critical method of interpretation. the stuff I'm hearing from LutheranCORE and the likes of Carl Braaten is totally foreign to me. By the way I read Braaten's Christian Dogmatics 20 years ago and never thought of him as a literalist. Would these folks now revoke the ordination of women? Are they captive to a certain culture just as much as so called liberals? As I look at Lutheranism's history I see a church divided and sub divided by many factors. Germans,Norwegians,Danes,Swedes etc. High church, low church, pietist, rationalists. Some coming together for a time only to split off when personalities clash. And the theological variations. Does a pastors particular brand depend on where he or she went to seminary? Just some questions from a happy, redeemed and forgiven Lutheran who's a little confused. God BlessHolly Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11015413471952353899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-28855878071783899482009-08-25T15:59:59.844-07:002009-08-25T15:59:59.844-07:00Pastor Erik I love this post. I would love to hear...Pastor Erik I love this post. I would love to hear more on your thoughts and would even maybe suggest a sermon or adult forum on these topics. I know they can be heated topics but I feel they are the topics that we most commonly ignore, and thus, don't understand. Keep up the writing.Katenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-45574934790889003072009-08-25T15:54:45.023-07:002009-08-25T15:54:45.023-07:00Pr Pub,
I sense the depth of your questions, and ...Pr Pub,<br /><br />I sense the depth of your questions, and I don't read them as snarky.<br /><br />As I read your blog post, I am lead down a slightly different tangent: How will the rules of engagement for "life-long" GLBT pastors compare to those of their straight pulpit-mates?<br /><br />"Life-long" doesn't give much wiggle room. Will the process of dealing with a previously divorced (or currently divorcing) straight preacher be the same as those for GLBT folks?<br /><br />Do we end up with 1 or 2 sets of guidelines on the topic?<br /><br />I don't have the answers, but I trust that reasonable people using a process of discernment will somehow come up with some reasonable rules.<br /><br />Peace,<br />@rschatz56560Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021292980918382492.post-17453359567833972452009-08-25T15:26:57.854-07:002009-08-25T15:26:57.854-07:00What do you tell the children, our better yet teen...What do you tell the children, our better yet teenagers (maybe your daughters when they are 15, 16, 17) when they come to you and say they are in love, in a monogamous relationship with their boyfriend and want to have sex. It's okay for pastors to do it now, so why not me.<br /><br />I guess you give them the foot of the cross speech, and tell them we live in a broken society and say it's okay, right? You certainly don't want to "hurt them" like the re-married people. We can't be hurting people's feelings now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com