Campaigning for Bishop (or Pastor)

The office of the bishop is political in the best sense of that term. Many of Basil [of Caesarea]'s letters reflect situations of high political intrigue where Basil extended the power and authority of his specific see to shore up and support the struggling churches in outlying areas or areas where orthodoxy had only a fragile hold on the clergy and people. Frequently he intervened in episcopal elections urging the clergy and people to elect a man who would be faithful to the traditions oreceived fromt he apostles and the fathers.... What we gain from Basil's handing of a crisis such as this is a good conception of the historic continuity in shaping the character of the pastoral office. As bishop one is not only placed into a congregation which extends back several years or even several generations, but as bishop one has a responsibility to be faithful to the totality of the Christian experience as it has unfolded over the course of centuries. There is a corporate identity to the church which cannot be reduced to the sum total of the present situation, for in defining what it means to be Christian the totality of the Christian past must be taken into consideration. Basil's point is that the office of the pastor is one of the chief means by which the Church is able to maintain and articulate the meaning of Christian faith from generation to generation.

In Basil's own situation such awareness gave him freedom, for it allowed him to look beyond the immediate squabble with Arianism and the allinace of Arianism with the emperor. Perhaps Basil's comments have a conservative ring to our [modern] ears, for those who today frequently call for loyalty to the past are really hindering our dealing with the present and restricting our freedom to cope with the future. But I doubt wheter this is really the case, for the past about which they speak is frequently the immediate past.... Seldom is it a appeal to the fullness of the tradition, a genuine catholic attempt to see the Church in larger terms than our immediate denominational tradition.... They usually mean the tradition of the last fifty of seventy-five years.

— Robert L. Wilken, "The Practice of Piety: Basil of Caesarea and the Pastor Office," Una Sancta (24:4, Christmass, 1967), 79-80, as it appears in the March 2015 issue of Forum Letter which arrived in today's mail.

Pondering...

Wolfe: "Broken Keys"

An excerpt from an excellent essay, "Broken Keys," by my brother pastor Ian Wolfe, STS, posted today at Lutheran Forum:

Our liturgical tradition has witnessed to the belief that the pastor speaks in the place of and with the full authority of the eternal Son of the Father. Thus we have the absolution spoken by the pastor in the rite of Confession and Forgiveness, “Cling to this promise: the word of forgiveness I speak to you comes from God. [Name], in obedience to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins.” And going back earlier within the tradition, the Service Book and Hymnal offers these binding words from the rite for Public Confession in preparation for receiving the Holy Sacrament:

On the other hand, by the same authority, I declare unto the impenitent and unbelieving, that so long as they continue in their impenitence, God hath not forgiven their sins, and will assuredly visit their iniquities upon them, if they turn not from their evil ways, and come to true repentance and faith in Christ, ere the day of grace be ended.

From this theological and liturgical tradition within the Lutheran church, a pastor whose bound conscience belief in the Word of God that homosexual behavior is sin for the sake of pastoral care exercises the keys and binds that sin until repented. In doing so, that pastor speaks God’s own binding word upon such a person. His sin is not forgiven, neither by the pastor on earth nor by God in heaven. The Office of the Keys is exercised in this way so that a person might be convicted by the law and saved by the gospel. This is the ministry of the gospel and a fulfillment of the pastoral calling to be ministers of the Word. I must be painfully clear this concerns every unrepentant sinner and every unrepented sin. I only address homosexual behavior, because it is the issue upon which the ELCA now struggles and according to the bound conscience doctrine the keys are a valid and correct response to this sin and must be respected.

The social statement, however, affirms and lifts up the exact opposite teaching and interpretation. According to the statement, an equally valid and correct interpretation of Holy Scripture is that, not only is homosexual behavior not a sin, but that it is something that the church should recognize and possibly even bless. The same Word of God as is taught above to be correct is now also correct in the opposite interpretation and application. The Office of the Keys rightly used above by pastors has no place in this interpretation.

The ELCA formally holding these two opposed positions as equally correct raises obvious and difficult challenges to the ministry of the keys and the unified witness of the gospel. Because the social statement puts forward the bound conscience, which cannot be violated, as the criterion for allowing opposite interpretations of Holy Scripture to be normative within the church, it is also putting forward two different and opposed ministries of the gospel. One ministry of the gospel is to use the Office of the Keys on those who engage in homosexual behavior. The other ministry of the gospel is to use the Rite of Marriage (for lack of a clearer term for a rite for recognizing a publicly accountable lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships). One ministry of the gospel is to stand in the place of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God and be His representative and witness to the vows that same-gender couples make. The other ministry of the gospel is to speak in the place and stead of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, to call a person engaging in homosexual sex to repent amend her life and strive to avoid it at all costs to save soul and body. And now in the ELCA according to the social statement and ministry policy resolutions both ministries of the gospel are correct, valid, and equal.

The implications of these two opposite ministries of the gospel are unthinkable. I truly pity our homosexual brothers and sisters who now hear from one pastor in the ELCA the keys and from another pastor blessings and welcome. Does Jesus speak to such a one, through the office of pastor, a word of admonition and warning to their soul or does Jesus speak to such a one, through the office of pastor, a word of joy and blessing for that same behavior? Which Jesus is speaking the truth to our homosexual brothers and sisters? This church unfortunately has confused the gospel to the point that a person engaging in homosexual sex doesn’t know whether he’s condemned by God or blessed by God! The bound conscience doctrine now condemns a person to his or her own conscience to determine whether this behavior is or is not sin, because this church can no longer give a clear witness. How can any one do that?

The social statement condemns us because, due to our fallen nature, we truly cannot discern our sins. We need an outside word. We need the Law of God (second use) to show us our true nature, to say “no” to our sinful desires and to show us what truly is good, right, salutary and God pleasing....

Read it all here.

Still an Unanswered Question

Last December I posted:

The Question No One Wants Asked

How do I counsel a celibate homosexual pastor who asks me to explain how the Word of God can be changed by an ELCA convention when he or she has spent a life time struggling with this issue and has resolved it in a different way than has the church?

The question was voiced publicly by Bishop Thomas A. Skrenes of the ELCA's Northern Great Lakes Synod at the Conference on Sexuality held October 24-26, 2002, in Kansas City, sponsored by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau and can be found published on page 44 of the book of that conference, Christian Sexuality.

Early during the Assembly before the sexuality discussions began, I saw Bishop Skrenes outside the plenary hall. So I walked up to him, re-introduced myself, and recalled his question.

"Have you gotten an answer?" I asked.

No, he hadn't.

Confessing that I hadn't either, I thanked him, both for asking the question in public and for his answer to me.

An ELCA News release earlier today reported,

At least two bishops revealed their voting record to their synods -- the Rev. Claire S. Burkat, bishop of the ELCA Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod and the Rev. Thomas A. Skrenes, bishop of the ELCA Northern Great Lakes Synod. Burkat supported the resolution, Skrenes did not.

Burkat and Skrenes committed to continuing conversation with members of the ELCA who do not agree with them.

"I voted against all of these proposals because I believe the theological and biblical case for change was not made," Skrenes wrote in his letter. 'My renewed pledge to you is to be honest, fair and pastoral as we enter the future."

WLUC TV6/FOX UP in Marquette, Michigan, reports,

In Marquette, Bishop Tom Skrenes says he will not recommend a gay or lesbian clergy member into the church. He voted against the ruling and fears the decision will only cause a divide.

"This decision, I think, will not be popular here in the Upper peninsula of Michigan by many of our congregation though there are advocates of this in almost every church in our synod," says Skrenes.

Skrenes says he will talk one-on-one with all of the 85 pastors throughout the Upper Peninsula about how this will effect the church into the future.

I wonder how many other ELCA Bishops intend to do the same?

Task Force Dissenters Speak Out

Courtesy Lutheran Forum, the minority on the ELCA Task Force for Studies on Sexuality is identified and speaks further on their dissent from the Task Force's proposals.

---

Statement by Three Dissenting Members of the ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality

We begin with a word of thanks and gratitude for the opportunity to serve on the ELCA Task Force for Human Sexuality. Even though the three of us often disagreed with the other 27 members and advisors of the task force on traditional biblical interpretation and theological principles, we were treated as the minority voice with great kindness, dignity and respect. Because we firmly believe the current polices of the ELCA, when enforced, are consistent with the biblical witness, Christian moral tradition, and the view of the vast majority of Christians in the world, we refused to sign off on both the social statement and the recommendations and are submitting our dissent. Changing current policies would sever the ELCA from the ecumenical church and the Christian consensus down through the ages. These policies include:

1. People who are homosexual in their orientation must live a celibate lifestyle in order to serve on the roster of the ELCA. (Visions and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline)


2. The 1993 Statement of the ELCA Conference of Bishops states that “there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.” However, this statement by ELCA bishops acknowledged that local pastors within their contexts are to “provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.”

Of critical importance when considering sexuality is the role of God’s commandments—his Law—in the moral ordering of the Christian life. We are convinced that God’s intention for marriage—life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman—established as the First Institute in Genesis 2 and re-affirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:6-9, serves as the center around which all Christian sexual ethics are defined. That original design, echoed throughout scripture and even depicted as the ideal relationship between Jesus and his bride, the Church (Revelation), has been shattered due to human sin (the Fall; see Genesis 3). Because of sin, humans have turned away from God’s intent for their sexual lives, bringing into the world such behaviors as polygamy, divorce, abuse, adultery, homosexual acts, pornography, etc., that no longer reflect the established pattern and ideal set forth by God.

However, by focusing on trust, freedom, and love of neighbor, the social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, strains forward to see what God might be doing anew within the community of faith, particularly in regards to conduct of persons who are homosexual, rather than building on the foundation depicted in the creation accounts of Genesis. The concept of freedom of the Christian, while helpful in our understanding of salvation by faith alone, cannot be the justification for a lifestyle and behavior contrary to the biblical witness and the moral tradition. From Galatians (5:13) we heard often, “For you were called to freedom.” However, we did not hear often enough the next line, “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the self-indulgence.” By centering on justification by faith, the social statement minimizes the role of the Law in Christian life, contrary to Luther’s exposition of the Christian life in the catechisms, and is at odds with the Lutheran Confessions—Article VI of the Formula of Concord. Justification by faith does not nullify the commands of God; to argue thus is to fall into “antinomianism.”

We contend that the recommendations proposed in Report and Recommendations, which advocate same-gender unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons, have little biblical, historical, or traditional support. The proposed recommendations advocate a radical departure from long-held moral tradition and biblical interpretation, thus distancing us further from the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, evangelical churches and most of the churches in the Protestant mainstream. We believe this is a very serious step that should not be taken by a sharply divided church, particularly without passage by a 2/3rd vote at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.

Because of these theological and pragmatic concerns and because the proposed recommendation threatens to fragment the ELCA as a church by allowing synods and individual congregations to determine their own practice, we felt compelled to draft Dissenting Position #1 (found in the Appendix). Recommending broad change in the present policies is extremely unwise and unfaithful. There may come a day in which a new consensus in the Church might mandate a change in teaching and practice, as was seen with slavery and Apartheid. Or, over time, this church might find that its resolve grows even stronger to maintain its foundational core beliefs, such as with the authority of scripture (II Timothy 3:16), justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28), and the primacy of Christ (Acts 4:12). Lack of consensus does not mandate change. In fact, it argues for the opposite: maintaining current policies.

Because longstanding biblical interpretation and teachings of the apostolic faith, all of which are shared with ecumenical church partners and partner churches of the Lutheran World Federation, argue against changing the current ELCA policies, we recommend the following to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:

1. Affirm and uphold the current policies of the ELCA, including both rostering and discipline, as stated in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.


2. Affirm the pastoral guidance of the 1993 Statement of the ELCA Conference of Bishops, that “there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.” However, pastors within their local contexts are to “provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.”

The ELCA is a church deeply divided on the issue of human sexuality. The recommendations of the majority of the task force represent a radical change that not only is contrary to Scripture and the apostolic faith, but is one that will splinter our congregations, alienate many of our members, further divide the unity of this church and, we believe, grieve the heart of God. We pray this tragedy will not occur.

Submitted in the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

The Rev. Dr. Scott Suskovic; The Rev. Corinne Johnson; The Rev. Carol S. Hendrix

---

Pastor Zip would amend this (otherwise fine) statement in 2 ways.

First, replace the word "celibate" with "chaste." The heart of my argument in "The Big Lie: ELCA Celibacy Requirement," noting that Vision and Expectations never calls for celibacy, but rather says:

Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.

That last sentence is about chastity, not celibacy. (See what I wrote here, too.) Likewise, the Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline speak of "chastity," not "celibacy." Again, see Pr. Richard Johnson's July 2004 Forum Letter article, "Controlling Chastity."

Also, I'm still waiting for the ELCA's sexuality discussions to grapple with Jonathan Mills' thesis in Love, Covenant & Meaning, "that the presence of 'homosexual' desires in a man does not make him incapable of marrying and raising a family." While I recommend the book itself, do take a look at Gilbert Meilaender's First Things review, "Gays Marrying," from May 1998 (!) and the Mills-Meilaender dialogue in October (1998) Letters of First Things (under the headline "Appetite and Eros") for a good description.

Second, I would want to clarify that to "provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister" does not, at least if pastoral care is to be faithfully Christian, permit a Pastor to publicly "bless" a homosexual union -- regardless of how many ELCA Bishops and Pastors have twisted the Conference of Bishop's 1993 Statement to insist that it means the opposite of what it meant in 1993.

The Question No One Wants Asked

How do I counsel a celibate homosexual pastor who asks me to explain how the Word of God can be changed by an ELCA convention when he or she has spent a life time struggling with this issue and has resolved it in a different way than has the church?

The question was voiced publicly by Bishop Thomas A. Skrenes of the ELCA's Northern Great Lakes Synod at the Conference on Sexuality held October 24-26, 2002, in Kansas City, sponsored by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau and can be found published on page 44 of the book of that conference, Christian Sexuality.

Six years later, the question remains ignored.

Why Keep the Athanasian Creed?

More from Robert Saler's essay, "Longing for the Longest Creed," found on pages 21-23 of the latest (Summer 2008) issue of Lutheran Forum:

[W]hat theological justifications remain for retaining the creed as a presence in the life of the Lutheran church? Can there be any value in encountering a creed in the teaching or even the liturgy of a congregation, if large segments of that congregation cannot assent to all of its features? I would suggest that it is precisely because the Quicunque provokes such an unsettling encounter between the fidelity of the early church and our contemporary mindsets that retention of the creed is so vital. This is true for several reasons.

First, the creed reminds us that, while Lutherans assert that it is faith that justifies us, we also believe that the faith to which we are called has a content and not simply a form. were one to deny this by claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that the grace of the Holy Spirit calls us to the "life" or form of faith without any specific theological content, then such a denial would constitute a definitive departure from the theologically "thick" faith of the Reformers and the church with which they understood themselves to be in continuity. Such a mentality would exacerbate the unfortunate tendency of many Christians to proclaim that we are saved through faith without further specifying what that faith asserts about itself. The Athanasian Creed is one of the church catholic's most powerful statements that the faith to which grace calls us is faith in the God of Abraham, the God of Jesus Christ, the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It declares that Christian faith is faith in the Trinity. The Lutheran insistence upon sola fide [faith alone] does not erase the so-called "scandal of particularity." If anything, sola fide revels in particularity. So does the creed, and in that sense it is a very Lutheran-friendly document.

Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier?

It's only a footnote in his essay, "Longing for the Longest Creed," in the newest (Summer 2008) issue of Lutheran Forum on the Athanasian Creed, but there Robert Saler packs a whole lot of commentary into just one sentence:

This piece of modalism is all the more vexing since it completely obscures the fact that, according to both the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Colossians, it is the second and not the first person of the Trinity who is the primary agent of creation.

The answer to the question in this post's title is, "No!"

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. AMEN.