Andrea Degroot-Nesdahl, former bishop of the South Dakota Synod of the ELCA once told the assembly about a part of the annual gathering that confounded her.
During worship, instead of singing together, half the room stood up and the other half sat down, while both sides argued about why they were doing the right thing. So, before the next year’s meeting, Bishop Andrea called her predecessor to get his advice.
But, he couldn’t remember how that part was supposed to go.
When Bishop Andrea talked about how frustrating it was when some stood up and others sat down and all the arguing it created, the previous bishop exclaimed: “Yes! That’s it. That’s how we’ve always done it.”
Not seeing beyond the past
Tradition is often used to prove that generations long past agreed with “us,” came to folly because they were not like “us,” or conversely that “we” have strayed from a noble past and charted our own course toward calamity. Many long for a revival of traditional Lutheranism, that if embraced, would enable us all to live happy, faithful lives.
However, the Lutheran tradition has always been a collection of traditions, and when we’re honest about it, we have to admit there has never been a time when all agreed.
Our confessions were an attempt to articulate a series of compromises about personal and civic life and faith in a way that achieved political gain, built coalitions among reformers or was simply an attack on the pope.
It was not a litmus test for Lutheran faith. In fact, our confessions include more than one draft, because we don’t even know which version the early reformers were able to agree on — more likely an altered later addition exists precisely because they were not of one mind.
Rugged Lutherans
Most people probably think of pioneer Lutherans when they think of the earliest Lutherans in America. And yes, the story of rugged Lutherans — surviving all manner of Exodus-like conditions and at times ordaining their neighbors as pastors because they got tired of waiting for “official” pastors to come and share communion — is one worth celebrating.
Particularly, because there are some land mine-like grudges between congregations in the same city (often within blocks of each other) that often stem from the language differences of the early worshipers and their painful journey that led some congregations to begin services in English and others to continue/begin worshiping in the native tongue of their members.
Yet, in my American Lutheranism class at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, I remember how amazed I was to learn about the brand of Lutheranism that originated in Pennsylvania, the pioneer congregations that were all black and the many other diverse ways that Lutheranism traveled to America.
Not only have Lutherans in America celebrated many traditional ways to live Lutheran, but we have always been diverse.
Though often painted as shallow Christians more concerned with cultural differences than the heart of worship, American Lutherans are probably more likely to leave their congregation over concern that the hymnal cover has changed colors than because of issues about sexuality.
Lutheran theology simultaneously unites us and causes some of our greatest disagreements.
If there is anything we can learn from the history of American Lutheranism, it ought to be that we must not try and separate ourselves or call for a single way to preach, worship, make music, bind our conscience or to vote.
Rather we should honor the diversity of the many strands and traditions that, when woven together, make a much stronger cord linking us back to those great reformers of the past who were just as incorrigible, motley, sinful and full of assuredness about where they stood and their inability to conform, refrain or change their course.
American Lutheranism is as diverse as every American that identifies as Lutheran.
May your faith light the sky like fireworks in deepest darkness.
May your life inspire others to do justice.
May we all learn to sing together with unity of spirit, truly experiencing God in the vibrating of our throats, filling of our lungs and in the fullness of our lives.
And may the ways we speak about American Lutheranism enfold you and the great multitude of believers throughout the ages who did their best and encourage us to do ours.
Megan M. Rohrer is an ELCA pastor called by five congregations and has been a missionary to the homeless in San Francisco since 2002.
Megan: I confess that I am confused about many things. I used to belong to Grace Lutheran Church in Needham, MA, when Timothy "Tim" Frank Lull was Pastor there. As I'm sure you know, he went on to become President of PLTS. (I actually miss him a lot.)
I noticed that you closed your blog with a blessing -- is that right? Now, I sincerely do not want to be rude or unpleasant, but as I said above, I am very confused. When Tim and I used to talk, it was all about Faith and Grace and Scripture, yet in your blessing you closed by praising those who DID THEIR BEST.
I was close enough to Tony Compolo to hear the conversation between him and the photographer at our synod Assembly several years ago (Tony gave the keynote address.) Before the photographer snapped his picture, Tony said, "I don't want justice, I want mercy." Don't we all. If everybody got was was coming to them, nobody would be happy. Would we really want Jesus to trerat us justly, sinners that we are? That's why Jesus died for our sins. That why we pray, "Lord, have mercy," not, "Lord make me an instrument of justice." People bent on tryng to be instruments of God's justice never ends well.
Thanks for doing your best, Megan. I find you inspirational.
“…American Lutherans are probably more likely to leave their congregation over concern that the hymnal cover has changed colors than because of issues about sexuality”.
I wonder how many congregations have left the church due to concerns over the color of the Hymnal covers, as opposed to sexuality issues. Has there ever been a church wide controversy over Hymnal covers? I wonder how much time, talent and treasure have been invested in the Hymnal cover controversies over the years. Were there church wide assemblies tasked to vote on the problem? Were there studies, reports, and official church wide statements regarding Hymnal cover colors? Has there ever been a whole new Lutheran church body spring into existence over Hymnal covers?
I think the evidence is so overwhelmingly adverse to such a statement that one has to wonder about the sincerity of the statement itself. Or could it be that statements like this are the product of a group-think mentality that unconsciously desires to will something into existence that does not correspond with reality.
davebob,
Hymnal cover color is clearly hyperbole, but not really by all that much. Without going into gory detail, there are a lot of people who hate a lot of things about the ELW, and that factors into church attendence. There have also been plenty of heated discussions over whether or not a congregation will adopt the red book or the blue book and usage and what-not. These things don't have to be church-splitting, but they lay down fuel for later issues. Music is an even bigger battleground. Churches have split over that issue, and pastors have been forced out. You don't hear about these because it happens at a local level and the triggering issue is different in each case. The sexuality statement is not the first issue that has divided ELCA churches. Also, I think the CWA09 decisions were for some people a breaking point-- it wasn't sufficient in and of itself, but they already wanted out, and this provided the final reason. If you look at the agit prop put out by Benne, Hinlicky and others, they never cite the sexuality statement as the sole reason... you hear things about the ELCA being doomed from the start and that it's just a symptom of Liberal Protestantism, etc etc etc.
Peter,
I tend to agree with much of what you said, except maybe the part about hyperbole. This is now the second time I have heard the “hyperbolic statement defense” used to explain what some could easily take for an agenda tainted statement. As you know, I am a great lover of the use of sarcasm and hyperbole. But this is a hard one for me to understand, being that the sexuality issue is still at the forefront of so much consternation. To make a lighthearted hyperbolic comparison of hymnal covers to sexuality issues, without regards to those who are struggling with this issue, doesn’t seem reasonable. Being just an hour or so drive from where the good Pr Rohrer hales from, I can tell you that around here this would not be considered a hyperbolic statement, but simply stating plain fact. But I fail to see how this would play as hyperbole in “American Lutheranism” as a whole, considering the article is addressing all the Lutheran divisions. This is what I meant by “group-think”.
The problems with the ELW go far beyond the color of the cover... little things like... AVOIDING THE TRIUNE NAME OF GOD. It's easier to demonize those who have a real theological probelm with contempoary Lutheran praxis by belittling their genuine concerns about orthodoxy with statements like, "It's not changing the words of the creed, it's the cranberry [that's the official color of the ELW] versus the green cover" that's bothering you. Please...
Chemnitz,
I have just read with interest your comment of July 28th. I am wondering if Tony Compolo was trying to paraphrase Hosea 6:6 --"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice." If so, there is a big difference between sacrifice and justice. Justice can be a good thing, and sometimes people feel called to be instruments of it. I believe that St. Francis of Assisi said: "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace." We cannot have Peace without Justice.
Thanks for all the comments. As I talked about in my last blog, On Being Lutheran, I'm more of a cultural Lutheran than a polity or liturgy centric Lutheran.
I've always got more to learn in those areas, so I'm grateful for the comments.
Also, since I've been asked to be an advocacy blogger, I'll almost always be writing in ways that seek to expand narrow spaces and to shine light about all of our beautiful humanness.
The comment about the color of hymnals actually is something I've been told by a lot of elder Lutherans around the country. Similar to the point of the opening story, they conveyed that the church has always had divisive issues. The point was not that this month it is a biggest issue, but that historically it has been as divisive in some parts of the country.
Here in the Sierra Pacific Synod, the sexuality change felt a bit like old news. So, I imagine there are probably synods that didn't notice how upset people were when hymnals turned green, then blue and then red again.
With joy, I celebrate the way these comments also show our Lutheran diversity. Go team!
John,
Justice vs mercy is another way of putting "Law and Gospel". Justice is that we get what we have coming to us... which is not good news for any of us sinners. Mercy is us sinners getting something completely undeserved. That's the Good News... and this the core of our faith. We are free to give undeserved love to anyone and everyone, regardless of how 'worthy' we think they are. That's most definitely not justice.
God's Law certainly demands justice. But keep in mind that God's Law applies to anyone and everyone, and is generally something that you should be able to argue on the grounds of being a decent human being. God's Law is important to talk about, hear and speak to one another... it helps keep society running.
Most importantly, though, God's Law is not God's Gospel. God's Gospel is not justice. The Gospel is mercy, freely given to undeserving wretches like you, me and everyone else.
John,
Justice vs mercy is another way of putting "Law and Gospel". Justice is that we get what we have coming to us... which is not good news for any of us sinners. Mercy is us sinners getting something completely undeserved. That's the Good News... and this the core of our faith. We are free to give undeserved love to anyone and everyone, regardless of how 'worthy' we think they are. That's most definitely not justice.
God's Law certainly demands justice. But keep in mind that God's Law applies to anyone and everyone, and is generally something that you should be able to argue on the grounds of being a decent human being. God's Law is important to talk about, hear and speak to one another... it helps keep society running.
Most importantly, though, God's Law is not God's Gospel. God's Gospel is not justice. The Gospel is mercy, freely given to undeserving wretches like you, me and everyone else.
Peter,
When you wrote about "Law and Gospel," did you mean that even though same-sex relations are forbidden under the Old Testament Law, now, because we are Freed in Christ by the Gospel, they are allowed? Some of the things you wrote sound somewhat like Christian Fundamentalism to me, and "Justice" is not the same as punishment. It has to do with Righteousness.
John,
No, that's not what I meant at all. Law/Gospel is not Old/New Testament nor 'everything is a sin/nothing is a sin'. If you do look at homosexuality as a sin, I argue that should not be a barrier to ministry-- all sorts of sinners are called to ministry. I don't look at homosexuality as a sin, even if the OT makes it clear homosexuality was a sin within the ancient Hebrew theocracy, and the NT makes it clear that St Paul followed Jewish custom of his day in believing homosexuality was sinful. For more explanation on homosexuality in relation to the Lutheran Confessions, see Ed Schroeder's piece at "Crossings."
The part the fundamentalists tend to get wrong is that they believe fulfillment of the Law is necessary for salvation and that Law is only revealed in the Bible. Taking God's wrath seriously is not the problem.
Justice does have to do with righteousness, but as per Luther, we believe in two kinds of righteousness. There is righteousness through the Law and righteousness through the Gospel. The former we can never achieve, while the second is freely given to us through Christ's death and resurrection. They are totally different things. The righteousness given to us by Christ is an alien righteousness, one that is ours solely by gift of God and not through anything we have done or failed to do.
Peter:
Even though there is NO scientific proof on the subject, I do not see homosexuality as a sin. I see homosexual ACTS as sins because I accept the Greek & Hebrew Scriptures. "Sola scriptura." (Martin Luther)
This all basically boils down to what you believe the Bible is. Is it a book written by 40 or so different men that were influenced directly or indirectly by God, and meant for the consumption of their contemporaries only, or do you believe the Bible to be what many of its writers claim that it is; The Holy written word of God, that is profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work for all time. It can’t be both.
Davebob! Both!!! It is both! Of course it can be both!!! You can be inspired to write and you can go fishing, with the Holy Spirit in your heart -- both!
Karen,
Do you hold that one must abstain from blood (Acts 15:20)? Even by Reformation times, this was no longer considered a sin. Yet, it's not just in Scripture (like not wearing polyester/cotton blends, eating shellfish, Levirate marriage and all of those other OT laws we ignore), but in the NT and commanded by the Apostles. Also, aside from a completely different understanding of sexuality, the end of Romans 1, Paul clearly thinks that homosexuality itself is sinful-- he says that "shameful lusts" or the acts are the outward sign, but that it comes from being given over to "sinful desires of their hearts" and "sexual impurity" and that these internal problems stem from idolatry. So distinguishing between act and what's in the heart is contrary to Scripture. It's also important for understanding the end of Romans 1, because in Paul's time, there was no argument over the initial diagnosis (homosexual acts as sinful). The initial diagnosis isn't the key; it's the idolatry that is the key God-problem. Our understanding of homosexuality today doesn't really let us go from 'homosexual inclinations' straight to idolatry any more than one could go from 'heterosexual inclinations' straight to idolatry.
davebob,
There's actually a lot of room in between, above and below your two stated positions. One problem is that of salvation-- even 2 Timothy speaks of making one wise to receive God's salvation through faith in Christ. That's Second Use of the Law (driving sinners to Christ) and not actually accomplishing any salvation, which is the true purpose of the Bible. All the rest of that passage from 2 Timothy speaks about the Law, which does not save. Righteousness under the Law is NOT Jesus' mission. Rescuing the unrighteous is, and that's not done through better adherence to the Law. It is finished through dying on a cross for those sinners. It is finished when God forgives the sins and raises Jesus from the dead.
The Bible is the cradle that carries Christ to the nations. That's its sole purpose. It was written by a whole mess of people. In NT alone, we have 4 distinct writers for the Gospels, 5 epistles attributed to Paul that he did not write, 7 letters actually from Paul and then the half dozen or so non-Pauline epistles as well as the Apocalypse, which puts it at ~20 different authors for the NT alone, assuming no more than 1 writer/epistle. The OT is even more of a mess, with 2-4 schools of thought (nevermind number of writers/editors/etc) going into the Penteteuch alone. This also ignores the fact that we have thousands of textual variants for the Bible, and the origin of each variant should probably be technically considered an author. The most clear example here is the ending of Mark's Gospel. There are a couple of different endings to it. Does that mean it was written by 2 authors? 3+?
Peter:
Back in the day when I was studying Theology, I would often recall the words of my granddad, (said with a wry smile): "There is a special place in Hell for theologians."
In your comment of 8/1, you mention "alien righteousness." Now, I have no idea whence cometh that term, but any reasonable person can see that this is theological mumbo-jumbo; it is just nutz. We are to fight the good fight, run the race, wash our robes white in the Blood of the Lamb.
Regarding your sexuality comment, I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know that much about sex.
Peter,
"and the origin of each variant should probably be technically considered an author".
How can a scribe (copier) be considered an auther?
Karen V.
When you start thinking that only part of the Bible is God’s “official” word; then you start finding people who will claim to know which part is from God, and which part is not. I say the WHOLE Bible IS the word of God. I can’t imagine a being that can speak and the whole universe leaps into existence, being satisfied with only a partial expression of thought.
Peter: What? I totally lost you. I do not know what you are talking about. You're not back on that Apocrypha thing, are you? Just go on-line and read!
Great Article Megan!
Peter wrote (8/2):
"Do you hold that one must abstain from blood (Acts 15:20)? Even by Reformation times, this was no longer considered a sin. Yet, it's not just in Scripture (like not wearing polyester/cotton blends, eating shellfish, Levirate marriage and all of those other OT laws we ignore), but in the NT and commanded by the Apostles. ..."
I say this: We must view issues on their appropriate levels. Eating blood (sausage) or wearing polyester blends would qualify, according to Jesus, as something that passes through the body or is just a piece of clothing. Sex is totally different. It is on a much higher level. Family. Pro-creation. It is Genesis 1. It has to do with LIFE. Chaim. Do I need to say more?
davebob,
A scribe would be an author when that scribe adds something or deletes something from the Bible. There isn't one complete version of the Bible... there are 3 really early texts considered the strongest witnesses, but they have different versions of various passages, and then there are later Bibles that have even more variations, and a lot of those variations are scribal changes. Which version of the Bible is the true version?
Karen,
Alien righteousness may be theological mumbo-jumbo, but it actually manages to say what it means. It is alien in that it is totally foreign to us; it comes solely from God.
I don't understand what you don't understand about my sexuality comment. The end of Romans 1 makes it clear that Paul does not distinguish between "homosexual acts" and "homosexual inclinations".
I also disagree that sex is totally different. It's all Law, and eating is Genesis 1 as well. Blood has to do with life, too, and the prohibition on eating blood is a much bigger no-no than say, sex with one's handmaid, or taking multiple wives, both of which seem to happen far more casually than consuming blood. Put another way, there's nothing Gospelly about sex. Whether you have sex or abstain, you don't get any closer to salvation.
Peter: Oh where is the Spanish Inquisition when you really need it?! I will try to respond.
Davebob, the question about which version of the Bible is the true version goes to the heart of the matter about the Authority of the Magisterium (Church, Tradition). The Bible did not drop out of the sky one day. It came from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Peter, really, I think you are very confused. If you cannot see the problem with disordered sex, I cannot help you. If, this afternoon, I decide to leave my husband and become a prostitute, I sincerely believe that "choice" will affect my "Salvation," however you want to define the word. As I said the very first time I responded to one of your comments: Common sense, man, common sense!!!