Crosses near the Aurora, Colo., movie theater are in remembrance of those who died in the attack.
Since I was 6 years old, I have been afraid of the kind of gun slaying that happened at the Batman screening recently. When I was younger, I tried to sleep in ways that made it look like my room was empty, so if an attacker came into my room at night they would not be able to find me. During nightmares, I strategized escape plans from attackers with guns in public places.
Unfortunately shootings, no matter how shocking, are not unique. And while I’m sure many survivors and pastors will be speaking out in the days following this event, I think the Lutheran tradition has a perspective that is helpful for this national conversation.
If you’re looking for lobbied opinions for more mental health care, more or less gun regulations or an attempt to figure out how or why this tragedy happened, you won’t find it here. Other traditions have louder, more polarized things to say. Lutherans are adept at issues that fall in the messy middle.
We have learned the lessons that come from having a founder whose anger caused wars against the innocent and the slaughtering of enemies and are able to see the ways issues like these are as complex as the God who created us. While it’s easy to get stuck in the “why” questions of a tragedy like this, Lutheran tradition calls us to look beyond the origins and to not only yearn for but to dirty our hands working for a more just and peaceful tomorrow.
When we are at our best, ELCA members voice very divergent opinions and continue to have the ability to work together to respond to disasters, fight malaria and respond to hunger and poverty issues. At the center of our faith is the need to respond to humanness in all its raw, beautiful-ugliness.
Our sacred Scriptures are neither fortune cookies nor shields from violence. They are gritty stories that provide opportunities to eavesdrop on characters that stare death in the face, try to rebuild after war and do the best they can to listen to God’s call for their lives.
The first time I stared death in the face was when I was 24 days old. At the baptismal font, my parents and a faithful Lutheran congregation celebrated a ritual designed to ease the fear of death. While I continued to spend many years afraid of gun violence after that moment, I deeply wish our country had a ritual we could share in times like these that would enable us to hear universally comforting words of promise.
Regretfully, we may only have the ability to feel this connection in our moments of silence. It will be tempting during this time of national mourning to try to attach blame, to become numb to the news and to let fear get the best of us. But we must learn to stop fearing our neighbors, to heal from our traumas and to find ways to crawl out from under our beds and live.
Megan Rohrer is an ELCA pastor called by five congregations and has been a missionary to the homeless in San Francisco since 2002.
You might also want to read:
So why am I more afraid of my neighbor?
A beautiful mess
Inexhaustible forgiveness
I don't think this is a "Lutheran" response at all, or even really a Christian one. Sympathetic, yes, but Christ is completely irrelevant to the post.
While I think there are lots of ways we can go in a response, ultimately this is our problem. Our problem in two ways. One is that most of us are not going to help the shooting victims and their families. We say 'that's terrible' and that's about it. Maybe offer some sympathy. We'll rationalize it, but in the end, we're not going to help. That's in violation of what God commands. Also, our human response to this is fear. Fear of it happening to us, fear of others using this as an excuse to control us, etc, etc. The only One to fear is God.
But none of that is the Christian or even Lutheran response to the shootings. That's a diagnosis of the problems facing us, which we need before we can even understand what a Christian response is. And the Christian response is that God walked this earth as Jesus and we killed Him. Yet, God rose from the dead and promised mercy to all of us sinners instead of death. That promise is for all of the victims of the shooting, and their families. But that mercy also comes in the aid of people donating to help pay for hospital bills, and hospital workers helping, etc etc. For us, it turns us from people who don't care, to those who do. And even if we miss that opportunity, there will be others in our community. And we don't have to fear. Not at all. Because our fate is Christ's.
Peter, I am deeply curious about who you are and where you blog. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not a blogger, but merely a lurker who sits on the sidelines and takes potshots at bloggers.
Your points are often well reasoned theologically but frequently framed with a complete lack of consideration for the writer's feelings. When people blog they are often making themselves vulnerable for the benefit of others while wrestling with questions many people are asking.
If you have been appointed to be the theological voice for Living Lutheran then I would ask you to be a bit kinder and more Christ-like in your responses. If you are a self-appointed policing agent of Lutheran theology, then I think revealing your full identity and writing a blog yourself is in order so others can police your thoughts as well. I don't ask you to quit commenting, just please temper your remarks a little more kindly. Thank you.
I will come to Peter's defense even though I agree with him on very little. Is Megan Rohrer a theological voice for Lutheranism? ...and, this post has been up since July 31st -- why only two comments? Does everyone reading this blog agree with Rohrer's point of view? -- it is well-known.
jklock,
Please see Luke 11:45-47 and Matthew 21:12 (and note that the word translated here as "robbers/thieves" is the same word used for Barrabas... the meaning is more like 'violent insurrectionist'...and He's applying it to the people who make the Temple system possible) for some examples of 'Christ-like'. I loathe all of the false nice, 'we have to say something nice in order to soften the blow of truth' stuff. It cheapens the meaning when I do say 'I like this post' or 'Great job'. It also tends to make an idol out of emotional responses.
With the possible exception of providing context for some of Pr Ash's posts, none of this has been personal or should be construed as a personal attack on anyone. It should be construed as a challenge to the theology when I disagree with it. As you say, publicly wrestling with issues is part of posting online. When challenging anyone's ideas, I try to provide explanation for why I am challenging them. There's plenty written there for you to police, should you want to. That's part of why I include the explanation and not just the first line. There are avenues online open to those who don't want any feedback or comments. Alternatively one LCMS blogger has his set up so he can screen the comments. Personally, I think it's in our diversity, openness to others' opinions and disagreements where we find our strength as a community. Part of that strength is being willing to be told that you're wrong, and part of it is willing to tell others when you think they're wrong. The rest of it is doing so without holding it against them.
Here, for example, I am saying that the post is neither Christian nor Lutheran for very specific reasons that go to the root of what we're doing in this entire business. These are not pejoratives. I am not opining that Pr Rohrer should be drummed out of the ministry, disciplined by her bishop, prevented from posting here or that she's a worse sinner than me or anyone else. I'm saying that there's nothing that makes the OP specifically Christian-- that requires some mention of Jesus' death and resurrection or Lutheran-- which requires that we put that death and resurrection at the very center of all we do and keep in mind that the resurrection is a completely free gift for us. These are objective statements that can be discussed. Likewise with 'false gospel'. That is a serious charge, not a pejorative. One reason it's so important is that without the Gospel, the church is dead. We need to keep that front and center in our ministry, and that does not happen nearly as often as it could in the ELCA.
Ah Peter, you still haven't told me who you are and how you came to be the expert theological voice of the ELCA in this space and whether or not you write a blog. I acknowledge that speaking the truth in love can sometimes sound harsh, even when spoken by Jesus (who, by the way had more knowledge of the hearer's heart than you do) but I don't actually read any love in your responses. That was what prompted me to question you in the first place. Peace be with you.
jklock, you have brought up the issue of love. This discussion has nothing do to with warm fuzzy love: we are discussing theology. I do not know Rev. Megan Rohrer, but I love her as a child of God even though I do not know her. This does not mean that I agree with her theology or her expressed, public beliefs. Please separate the issues or we will get nowhere.
Rohrer wrote: "At the center of our faith is the need to respond to humanness in all its raw, beautiful-ugliness." Neither Peter nor I think this comment, in the context of Rohrer's theology, expresses "the center of our faith."
Peace, Love and especially Truth.
Peter and Karen are absolutely correct in questioning Rohrer's adherence to basic, orthodox Christian theology. Let's examine some quotes from the article.
1. Karen has already mentioned that Rohrer's statement, "at the center of our faith is the need to respond to humanness in all its raw, beautiful-ugliness" fails to truly express the center of our faith. St. Paul teaches that the crux of our faith is that "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). God doesn't love us because of our ugliness, he loves us in spite of our ugliness. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal."
2. Rohrer calls baptism "a ritual designed to ease the fear of death." Baptism should indeed ease the fear of death (especially the second death of perdition), but it does so much more than ease fear. Our Lord has explicitly said that "the one who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Luther echoes this in our Small Catechism: "It [baptism] works the forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives all eternal salvation who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."
3. "When we are at our best, ELCA members voice very divergent opinions and continue to have the ability to work together to respond to disasters, fight malaria and respond to hunger and poverty issues." Obviously, ministering to the poor, the sick, and the afflicted is an integral part of our faith and is seriously commanded by our Lord (esp. in Matthew 25). The ELCA is to be commended for its work in these areas. However, Peter is correct in feeling a little unsettled at the lack of mention of Jesus' death and resurrection, which is the primary message of the Gospel. Rohrer and the ELCA as a whole should be concerned they are substituting preaching the good news with simply doing NGO work. Again, St. Paul: "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:19).
Let us not pursue cheap grace, but the costly grace that "costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
In Christ,
Nick
It appears the moderator has erased an entire paragraph of my comment. It wasn't an attack on Rohrer. It was the URL of her website and the website for "herchurch", one of Rohrer's congregations.
jklock,
We seem to be talking past each other. How about you rewrite one of my two previous posts and add in the love you feel is missing so I can see what you're talking about.
I have not given you any personal identity information because I want you and everyone else to judge me on my words, and my words alone. It doesn't matter whether I am 13 or 83, a seminary professor, pastor or nobody at all. I interpret your desire for such information as a way to avoid discussing and facing the words that I write. It seems like you're looking for an excuse to dismiss them so that you don't have to answer them. If you're looking for more of my words to judge me on, just browse this site; you'll find plenty.
NPhillips,
For whatever reason, external links of most kinds are against the rules, and hence get removed. The site is poorer because of this rule, but it's nothing personal nor a commentary on anything that you've written.
Peter and NPhillips -- Thank you for your comments. I agree with what you are saying, and I think it needs to be said.