Photo by Denise Carbonell
Originally posted July 25, 2012, at Pastor Keith Anderson. Republished with permission of the author.
Want to know what’s on the mind of young clergy? Try hanging out at the hotel bar at 1:00 a.m. during a synod assembly. Despite what you might think, it is a sobering experience.
You will hear comments and conversation that range from anger and frustration, to deep sadness. Many of my friends and colleagues, who are talented and smart ministry leaders, are really struggling.
It troubles me to see such worry and cynicism among my friends and young clergy. It is a good thing for the church when young clergy are idealistic and hopeful.
It reminds us all of why we do this work. I have such compassion for them and share many of their frustrations.
If you happened to show up at the bar at 1:00 a.m., I think they would tell you —
- They love Jesus and they love the church.
- They understand they are presiding over the death of American Christendom.
- They are OK with that,
- But they want the church and their leaders to be honest about where we are.
- The sooner we can come to terms with our dyings, the sooner we can live into the new life that is emerging from it. Despite their concerns, they remain hopeful.
- They yearn for authenticity and honesty in their leadership.
- And long to be listened to, heard and understood.
- They are native to a culture that the church, on the whole, does not fully — or hardly — understand or engage. That doesn’t just go for parishioners. It goes for clergy, too.
- They are never going to act or sound like previous generations of clergy.
- They feel the church needs honest self-assessment but feel they can’t be critical because their next job depends on the people they may critique.
- They feel the expectations placed on younger clergy are not enforced among older clergy.
- They are finding it really hard to get second calls.
- Some have been hurt by the church, felt unsupported and misunderstood.
- They are no less theologically committed than their predecessors,
- But their work looks different and their language sounds different.
- Many of their initiatives do not fit into existing church structures.
- This does not make them less equipped or less effective at being pastors.
- They are worried about job security — not just about getting paid (which is not always a given) — but whether they can do the job they feel called to do in congregations that don’t want to change. Being prophetic is an attribute we laud in seminary, but it can get you fired in the parish.
- They are drowning in student debt.
- They are not sure it is possible to have a full career at ministry, let alone service their student debt, cover expenses and have a life.
- But money isn’t the most important thing to them. No one goes into ministry for the money.
- They are frustrated by the inability or unwillingness — or both — of congregations and denominations to change. Or at least be honest about why they can’t, won’t or don’t.
- You can do most anything, if you feel like we are making some progress and people are in it together. Many don’t feel that way.
If you are reading this and writing it off, saying, “These are just the same complaints made by every group of young clergy,” I believe you do so at the ELCA’s peril. Perhaps the difference is that this cohort of clergy aren’t critiquing an institution we just assume will still be here in 10 years. They are calling us out of the cloud of denial — telling us that if we don’t act, it won’t be — and that we have to talk about it.
They can and will and some already have walked away from the ministry. If they do, the ELCA will lose some great talent. It will also lose its cultural fluency — something it already struggles with. (In the same way as when the church gives up on youth, young adult or campus ministry.)
They are not going to “wait their turn.” Because, by then, it will be too late.
How to engage young clergy
Young clergy also want you to know that they are ready and willing to support and to lead in moving the church forward.
They are already doing it by whatever means they can: sparking conversations in social media and within their professional and personal networks. Church leaders would be smart to pay attention to the conversations happening online — which are, paradoxically, offline in church circles, because we struggle to acknowledge the realities when we are together. It is crucial for the church to support these young clergy — and in my own tradition, beyond programs that place young clergy in the role of followers and learners, rather than supporting them as the leaders they are and we need them to be.
- They need to be brought into formal and informal leadership roles.
- They need to have the ears of bishops.
- Some need to chair synod committees, in part, so that their peers can see young clergy in leadership.
- However, much of the work they do doesn’t yet have a place in the institutional structure of the church.
- When that is the case, the institution needs to find ways to recognize, support and encourage that work without necessarily institutionalizing it.
- Identify key leaders among your young clergy.
- Meet with them.
- Have a gathering of young clergy (formally or informally organized), just as you might do for retired clergy.
- Listen and understand.
- Encourage and respond.
Are you a young clergy person? What would you say? How do you see it?
Find a link to Keith Anderson’s blog Pastor Keith Anderson at Lutheran Blogs.
You might also want to read:
The Millennial generation and religion
Worship: what and why?
Hip-hop outreach
your second bullet point, they know they are presiding over the death of American Christendom is a sign of good news. Perhaps, just perhaps what grows anew from the ashes of what was will be where God is leading us all along.
"They understand they are presiding over the death of American Christendom." American Christendom is NOT dying -- the two largest groups, Southern Baptists and Catholics, are doing just fine. It is Liberal Protestantism that is dying, as statistics show.
Thank you for saying what others cannot.
I have a quibble. Having been in ministry for 26 years and thus being an older pastor does not preclude me from feeling a lot of the same things as the younger clergy and having similar concerns. The only one that I probably cannot identify with is the part of student loans (dealt with those in my early years though), but that doesn't mean that I don't have other financial worries.
Yes. We need to listen. To each other.
Having moved from northern Illinois to a suburb of Nashville, the "Vatican" (headquarters)of the Southern Baptist Convention, I frequently read in THE TENNESSEAN (the Nashville newspaper) that the Southern Baptists are in agony because their membership is dropping and their rate of adult baptisms (new members) has been dropping the last few years.
Their reasons have been numberous, including many of their churches are in dwindling rural towns.
With these often front page articles in THE TENNESSEAN, we can no longer say "liberals" are the only ones with lowered memberships.
It seems to me that the non-denominational churches, that are largely Baptist in their orientation, are the ones that are benefiting from the collapse of the great protestant churches. These non-denoms tend to be relatively conservative on social issues and use their wealth locally as opposed to more global mission.
It's not a liberal vs conservative difference. It's the same thing that's happened in Europe and in Quebec. We're becoming a mission field, and pointing the fingers to the "other side" doesn't really fix anything. Are the remaining churches in Europe all conservative?
The message we've lost is Christ crucified... that's not a conservative or liberal issue.
Peter,
While I agree that pointing fingers at each other doesn't fix anything; I do believe it is a liberal vs. conservative difference. Lets just take the ELCA's membership statistics from the year 2000 until now. The membership curve, while already showing a slow exodus in the early decade, steepened quite noticeably after August 2009. This was a classic liberal vs. conservative issue driving this migration. I do not believe these people just left their Christianity. On the contrary, they landed in more conservative churches. If this was not a liberal vs. conservative issue, you would expect to see at least a break even; with liberal masses flooding into the vacant pews left by the conservatives. I would also agree that the same thing that happened in Europe and Quebec is happening here. And that thing is a slow drift toward socialism; where churches have relinquished one of their main missions of feeding the sheep to the government. You can literally plot the rise of socialism with the decline of the church everywhere it is happening. Modern day liberalism is the arc enemy of the church. The modern liberal will say "I don’t believe in God so we need to remove all references to God and prayer from the public square". Then they say you can't speak controversial Bible passages even from the pulpit. The Government schools start indoctrinating our children against what the church stands for. Before long, Christianity has been brainwashed out of society. We see the face of modern day liberalism in our media where Christians are universally told we are haters, stupid flat earth believers…etc. It is impossible to hold a dialog about the death of Christendom outside of the liberal vs. conservative paradigm.
davey,
The death of Christendom and ELCA decline are two different things. Conservatives leaving the ELCA to go to other churches aren't decreasing the overall numbers of Christians in the US. The problem isn't that conservatives are suddenly becoming liberal or that liberals are brainwashing people (check the proportion of registered Republicans, Democrats and independents for the last 10 or 20 years... I don't think it's changed). As they say in Clue, "communism was a red herring". (check the Orthodox church in Russia) The liberal vs conservative paradigm obscures what the real problem is. That problem is the absence of Christ in both conservative and liberal churches.
I agree with Davey here. Christ is alive and well in many wonderful conservative churches. I belong to one of them. Christ is absent in churches, I believe, that have "Applesauce Communion" (see The Lutheran Magazine), and preach the "bible" (note lower case -- this is the signature of Liberalism) as opposed to the Bible.
Your comment: "communism was a red herring" is very troubling to me. My family is Cuban, and we have witnessed the death and suffering of countless devout Christians at the hands of Communism. I would respectfully ask you to reconsider your position.
"Conservative" churches are declining just as fast as the "liberal" ones. The only church that's really growing in the US is the Mormon church. Quebec was almost entirely Catholic, and now they're not. It's not because they were too liberal nor is it because Canada is "socialist". This is a problem that affects everyone, and the answer isn't in the politics. It's in how we fail to proclaim Christ.
So far as Communism goes, there are now more Christians in China than members of the Communist party. Forces that have imposed Communism have persecuted the church among other groups for sure, but persecution cannot kill the church. The Russian Orthodox church has outlived the Bolsheviks.
Peter.
Another pillar of liberalism, that is probably the leading cause of the death of Christianity, is birth control and abortion. This has been the top issue for conservative Christians for years. One thing that helps grow Mormon churches is that they tend to not end life in the womb, and are about the business of being fruitful and multiplying (much like the world’s fastest growing religion…Islam). I don’t see either one of these religions converting people in mass numbers; they are populating their way to growth. On the other hand, liberal churches and societies have by and large dismissed the “be fruitful and multiply” motif and have chosen to depopulate, as the Europeans, Canadians, Chinese, Russians, Australian’s and others have decided to do. All of these nations range from very liberal to semi-communist. Americans are at the break even fertility rate of 2.1 per reproducing couple. And we are a little more conservative nation.
God had just two commands for us after he created the earth, and just two after he destroyed it; “Be fruitful and multiply”. This has not only fallen out of favor in Main stream Christianity, it is thought of as an absurdity.
You may be right to say that "Conservative" churches are declining just as fast as the "liberal" ones. But I would argue that it is not because of conservative principals, it is because the people in the more conservative churches are not living the lives of a conservative Christian. If all Christians were way more conservative, it stands to reason that there would be millions of more Christians that weren’t aborted or otherwise didn’t make it because of birth control. Conservatives fought against the pill, abortion and the day after pill. If all Christians were more liberal, it stands to reason that there would be even less Christians among us today because of more people ending pregnancies in one way or another. Liberals fought for all of these things. Sadly, we are all using these things to the detriment of the church.
The only reason Christianity is growing in china is that communism has been allow to temporarily recede and where communism recedes churches grow. The church went underground in communist Russia and out lasted the communist. And when communism receded the Orthodox Church reemerged. I will repeat “You can literally plot the rise of socialism with the decline of the church everywhere it is happening” and I will add “visa versa”. To entertain the notion that communism/socialism are of no consequence to the church is historically inaccurate.
davey,
Birth control and abortion didn't become issues for Christinianity until ~1970's. Dismayed at the peace movement in the mainline churches, an arms dealer set up the Institute for Religion and Democracy to get the mainlines hooked on two issues instead of the lucrative war: abortion and homosexuality. Needless to say, he succeeded quite well. I think blaming mainline decline on abortion and birth control is not going to show you the answers you seek. I don't think birth control or breeding is why the Mormons are doing better. Orthodox Jews breed similarly, and they're not showing the growth the Mormons are.
As to principles, if even conservatives don't stick to conservative principles, what use are those principles? Before complaining about liberalism, etc, don't you need to get the conservatives living up to conservative principles?
Socialism in Latin America is actually closely tied to the Catholic Church and the Liberation Theology that emerged there. That the church could survive underground in Communist Russia indicates that Communism is not a serious issue. Hiding is not the same as decline. The church is essentially gone from Quebec, and there was no Communism. The church isn't going into hiding here in the US, it's disappearing. Teaching conservative values that even conservatives don't follow doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.
1) " Birth control and abortion didn't become issues for Christianity until ~1970's."
Which just so happens to be the start of a major decline in Christiandom.
2) Dismayed at the peace movement in the mainline churches, an arms dealer set up the Institute for Religion and Democracy to get the mainlines hooked on two issues instead of the lucrative war: abortion and homosexuality. Needless to say, he succeeded quite well.
I don't know what this means. It has little to nothing to do with my comment. (who is he?)
3) I think blaming mainline decline on abortion and birth control is not going to show you the answers you seek.
I seek not to blame, just to seek truth.
4) I don't think birth control or breeding is why the Mormons are doing better. Orthodox Jews breed similarly, and they're not showing the growth the Mormons are.
So why are they increasing?
5) Socialism in Latin America is actually closely tied to the Catholic Church and the Liberation Theology that emerged there.
Like I said, conservative people are not being conservative.
6) That the church could survive underground in Communist Russia indicates that Communism is not a serious issue.
HUH? Church-underground? What is not understand?
7) Hiding is not the same as decline.
Hiding is different than flourishing.
8) The church is essentially gone from Quebec, and there was no Communism.
No, just socialism; which makes my point.
8) The church isn't going into hiding here in the US, it's disappearing.
Because of socialism.
9) Teaching conservative values that even conservatives don't follow doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.
I agree and lament that conservative values are not practiced
Great comments, Davey. From my point of view, I would substitute the word "liberalism" for "socialism," but here we are talking the definition of words.
Peter -- I think you are so far off the mark that I wonder if you are even facing the target. Your comments about birth control and abortion are nonsense.
Your comment about the Catholic Church in Latin America is a half-truth at best. Liberation Theology has been completely rejected by the Church. There are many faithful Catholics in L.A. who have valiantly fought against Socialism and Communism, and continue to do so.
The Church in Quebec declined because of liberalism in the culture. The Catholic Church in the US is doing fine, in spite of our culture. "Teaching conservative values that even conservatives don't follow doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. It would be as if Jesus said: "Teaching values that even my disciples don't follow is not a winning strategy."
Karen,
Your statement "if Jesus said: "Teaching values that even my disciples don't follow is not a winning strategy." is exactly correct. Teaching values isn't the winning strategy, and it certainly wasn't that of Jesus. His winning strategy was Christ: dying on a cross and being raised up by God for the forgiveness of sins. That's THE winning strategy.
Also, as to theologies that are "completely rejected" by the Catholic Church, I would direct you to some of Fr Roger Haight's writings or other Jesuit teachers. Or the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
davey,
Mormons are increasing because they are making converts. The church in Africa is increasing because 2000 are being baptized in one day.
Hiding and fluorishing are not antonymns. Consider the passages about dealing with your Father in secret or the Lutheran Confessions' own recognizance of the 'hidden' church in the church of their own time-- and that in a Europe that was officially Christian. Cultural Christianity is not what it's all about.
If your hypothesis was correct, you would predict a huge difference in the membership numbers between randomly selected "liberal" or "conservative" churches in the ELCA. That difference simply isn't there (or if it is, it's the "conservative" numbers that are lower).
Also, historically, this is not borne out in the church. If you really want to pick "liberal" or "conservative" labels for historic figures, it's easier to make an argument for "liberal" than "conservative" for many major figures in historic Christianity. Many of the prophets are used extensively to justify current "liberal" policies in the church. St Paul clashed with the "conservatives" aka Judaizing Christians in his day. His message won. Augustine similarly was a bit out there in his day. The Reformation also turned a lot of things on their head, but it's easier to make a case for "liberal" than "conservative".
Peter,
Wow, 2000 in one day? I would like to see more info on that one. If this is the case we are in more trouble than I thought. Did they save um up to do it at one time or did that many juct come in?
I think we are talking past each other Peter. Let me see if I can clarify better. Below is the preamble to the state of Illinois. Note all 50 states have preambles that mention God.
Illinois 1870, Preamble — We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors…
Skip ahead to 2012 when the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel openly declares that "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago's values" because of the religious opinion of the companies CEO. And then Rahm goes and meets with none other than Louis Farrakhan a self proclaimed Gay Hater.
Massachusetts Constitution:
Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Skip to 2012---Not to be out done by Rahm, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino vowed to block the chain from opening up shop in his city, promising to make it extremely difficult for the company to procure the required licenses.
Preamble to the State of Pennsylvania:
WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Skip to 2012 --Then, Philadelphia City Councilman Jim Kenney told the fast-food company's president, Dan Cathy, to "take a hike" two weeks ago after Cathy spoke out against gay marriage. But unlike the Chicago and Boston politicians who threatened to stymie Chick-fil-A's business in their cities, Kenney said he would condemn the company in a City Council resolution but not mess with any of the existing fast-food outlets in Philadelphia.
This is the face of modern liberalism Peter. The people who penned the original documents were considered liberals. They were influenced by the great European liberal societies that brought us the magma carta or Magna Carta Libertatum and Habeas Corpus. Can you imagine if a state tried to write that today? Liberals would go berserk, most conservatives would be just fine with it! Around 1848 when atheist Karl Marx introduced communism, the great liberal societies began to change. In the US, progressivism (which was born out of a split in the Republican Party between traditional conservatives and liberal Republicans) began to take root. Soon the Democrat Party owned progressivism and progressive liberals produced heroes like George Bernard Shaw (a Fabian Socialist) and Margaret Sanger (the socialist Planned Parenthood founder) who helped usher in the wonderful practice of eugenics. Progressivism also brought us Germany's national socialist party which gave us Hitler, who took eugenics to the Jews. Back in the US, Sanger's goal was to eliminate "lesser, unfit folks including black people. Apr 24, 2009 – Hillary Clinton Compares Margaret Sanger to Thomas Jefferson. Progressives of all stripes joined the KKK by the millions while progressive Pres. Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the military and the Federal work force) watched "the birth of a nation" inside the white house. The atmosphere that Government creates greatly influences the population. The point is that the word "liberal" has changed. Many modern liberals would be considered as classic socialist, and many modern conservatives would be considered as classic liberals.
The Naked Communist is a book written in 1958 by conservative United States author and faith-based political theorist Cleon Skousen.
The book posits and seeks to describe a geopolitical strategy by which the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union was attempting to overcome and control all the governments of the world that were not members of the Communist bloc. At the time that the book was published, during the Cold War, fear of communism was common among people in non-communist nations.
In 1960, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints president David O. McKay recommended that all members of his church read The Naked Communist.
The list of communist goals contained in the book was read into the Congressional Record by U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida, on January 10, 1963. Below are excerpts from the list:
13) Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14) Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
28) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
29) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.
I would say that this list reads like a liberal / progressive wish list, but these dictates have already been fought for and won by liberals. Oh would it be that our modern day politicians would speak out for the cross and Him that hung on it! And just think if our college professors, business leaders could freely speak out for Christ without being threatened. We could make it to where our kids could pray in school, and mention their savior at graduation ceremonies and sporting events or write essays and book reports on the Bible. We could teach creation and evolution and let the critical mind find it's own path. We could leave our Christian crosses and monuments where they are and not worry about being sued. Today's liberals are adverse to Christianity and some of whom are Christians. When is the last time you heard the Rev. Jackson or Sharpton speak out for Christ? They are now more interested in your financial wellbeing that your spiritual wellbeing. They have relegated themselves to Sail Alinsky style political agitators. "The Jesus Seminar" is another example of how liberal Christians set out to destroy their own doctrine. Christianity is also being destroyed from within. When you combine the political and church atmospheres, it's no wonder that churches in general are failing. I guess a falling tide lowers all boats. I really don't think liberalism inside, or outside the church has helped. And I also don't see how conservatism could have hurt the modern church. Conservatives, both inside the church and outside, are by and large, the friends of the church. I can't help but think if we had more friends of the church we would all grow more.
Sorry for being so long winded.
Peter, I have been following your comments for a couple of years now. Why do you always answer every objection with a sort of D. James Kennedy-esque nutshell Gospel presentation? Yes, I know that Jesus died for me, and I am saved by His death and resurrection.
When I said Liberation Theology had been rejected by the Catholic Church, I meant that is the official teaching position of the Vatican. Of course, there are dissenters. Tell me, which is worse? Voices of dissent within the Church or people leaving the Church?
davey,
I think we probably are talking past each other. If the Naked Communist was written by a "conservative United States author", it's useless as a source to talk about Communism. All it says is that the "conservative" fears about Communism then are the "conservative" fears about Communism today.
Side note on your list of things for which you wish, teaching "Creationism" has less place in our schools than teaching Santa Claus.
A lot of what you are railing against is the cultural Christianity being stripped out of our world. Much like the cultural aspects to which you object in some of Pr Rohrer's posts. Statues of God and school prayers don't make one a Christian any more than regularly attending church.
My experience is that "conservatism" has hurt the church far more than "liberalism". Most of the atheists I know are atheists because of their experience with "conservative Christianity". Others become atheist when they learn things that don't fit into their conservative Christian box, the Historical-critical method being a big one (Bart Ehrman is a good example of this). We do mission work at Pride festivals. More than half of the people there hear us tell them that we are a church that welcomes the LGBT community, and flat out don't believe us and want nothing to do with church.
Karen,
Both voices of dissent and people leaving the church are problems, for mostly the same reason. Whether one is technically a member of a church or not is irrelevant. What matters is where the heart is and the mission that is carried out by the church. It turns out all of us hang our hearts on something other than Christ crucified and risen, and we bear the penalty for it. The Church's mission is to proclaim Christ crucified and risen so that hearts may be turned back on Christ.
At some level, I believe that you know that you are saved by Christ's death and resurrection. However, that event is far more than an intellectual thing or the top item on the 'things to believe' list. It is the key to our faith and in clinging to that Promise we have power. That power is obscured in the church, and it's not used. This is why the church is dying; we're cut off from Christ. Many of the posts here are testament to that; they rely on things other than Christ's death and resurrection. We proclaim Christ crucified and raised alone and only for the forgiveness of sins. Without transmitting that power, we're as good as dead. That's what I've been trying to point out here.
I just joined this group and I am hearing the same "crap" about liberal versus conservative as every other damned religious blog speaks of - it's extremely wearing. Dear liberals - please don't waste time on the conservative argument. It is set and warped and not worth our time. Our time as liberals is better spent feeding the hungry, loving one another and witnessing to the love of Jesus in our lives every single day. I have long figured out that the folks who shoot anti gay Bible bullets do not really care what the Bible says but would rather skew 6 verses to support their discomfort with those who see themselves at homosexual. It's not about God - it's about the "ick factor" - ie those who cannot see past a person's sexuality to the soul within. My Christian gay family and friends will see you in heaven, my conservative friends, and then you will have to change your mind. Until then - let us do everything to the glory of God. We are ALREADY saved - that is what Jesus ALREADY did. WE have no need to be crucified all over again. Blessings!
Blessings to you, pastorh! This is a very interesting comment. Are you implying this blog, "Living Lutheran," is liberal? Shouldn't the Church be inclusive -- welcoming both liberals and conservatives? In my case, several of my close relatives are gay, and one has HIV. One of my close friends died from AIDS. Would I "shoot anti-gay bullets"? I consider myself a devout Christian. I have studied the Bible for many years, and read Hebrew and Greek. You comment about "6 verses" is absurd. "Ick factor"? Wow. That is really off. Yes, we are saved by Christ, but that does not give us the license to sin.
pastorh,
Knocking down the idol of conservatism does not mean that I worship at the idol of liberalism. For example, I disagree pretty heavily with what you say as well. It looks like you confuse things, too, just with a different bent. Sin is real, and the wages of sin are death. What you miss is that we crucify Jesus every day. Not in the far off, fantasy, technically we're not perfect, but in the very real, people's lives are worse because of us, way. We need the Gospel to save us from that in the present, again and again.
Peter and pastorh --
What a small word "is" is! "The wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23. In my view, many of the problems we have today come from a faulty, careless, superficial reading of Scripture. Today the word "Bible" is not even capitalized -- it is "bible." It is the "Book of Faith." We must read Scripture as servants, servants of the Word. Everything we need to know is in the Bible, repeated many times over, in many different ways, but the message remains the same. God is God; we are creatures. We cannot change His Word.
Peter
Does everything aside from Christ and His gospel have to be an idol? I do not think a Christian who has a certain set of core beliefs about personal behavior, society, or politics is necessarily worshipping an idol. Liberal and conservatives are all experiencing great strife and uncertainty as of recent. There is great division on how we want to move forward in our politics as well as with our churches and families. We express ideas and point out past failure in hopes of changing minds. If your ideas do not resonate with anyone, than they are soon forgotten. If they do, a movement (hopefully for the better) may be started.
pastorh
I don’t have any gay friends or family that I know of. I don’t personally know any gay folks (or at least I don’t think I do). If what they say is true; that 1 in 10 people are gay, I must a least know 50 gay folks. And since I can honestly say that I can’t even think of hardly anyone I know that I don’t like; by default I must like at least some gay folks just by the math. Can Dr. Sayyid M. Sayeed (the national director for the Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances of the Islamic Society of North America) say the same thing? Dr. Sayeed is a Muslim who is against gay marriage, and probably for plural marriage in the context of Islam. He was invited to speak at the 2011 ELCA assembly and was roundly celebrated. But your own fellow Christian Lutherans are “shooting anti-gay bullets” when we have an even more liberal view than Dr. Sayeed? Our conservative Christian views are “warped” and you shouldn’t waste time trying to change our minds while singing “The Old Rugged Cross” with a Muslim at the podium? Is there something wrong here?
davey,
I'm using Luther's idea about idols, which is that idols are that on which you hang your heart/that in which you trust. That's exactly what you're doing when selling conservatism. Your argument, as I understand it, is 'if everyone adhered to the principles of conservatism, everything would be as good as it could be'. That's idolatry, because it's putting your trust in those principles instead of Christ. It's one thing to have principles, and ideas about how best to organize a country, but it's idolatry when we believe that those ideas will allow us to make it 'as good as possible'. Sin wrecks all of that. Sin ensures that no one can live up to any of these ideals (note that in theory, Communism works just as well as conservatism, if not better...the problem isn't the ideal, but the practice that is marred by sin). The only thing that will make everything work out is Christ's death and resurrection. That stands out regardless of conservative/liberal, which means that we can bring healing and new life regardless of which group is winning.
Karen,
The use of "is" vs "are" is completely irrelevant to my post. I could even have translated it 'the payments of sin are death' or 'the payment of sin is death' to make my point.