Lutheran CORE open letter

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I know many of you have already read and even signed the Lutheran CORE's open letter to the ELCA. If you have not it is linked here:
LutheranCORE - An Open Letter to the Voting Members of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly

I thought I would also share Herbert Chilstrom's response to the letter
(Another) Chilstrom Open Letter

And Carl Braatan's reply to his response:
http://lutherancore.org/pdf/Braaten-letter-to-Chilstrom.pdf

Particularly for those who have signed the document as I have it is worth reading.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

Well.... as Lorne once said in Angel:

How can you joust someone when you partially see their point of view?
(Kudos to anyone who gets that reference)

Interesting reads, and I find myself at least somehwat sympathetic with both of their letters. There are good points on both sides, I think.

I'm not sure this should pass, for example, but I am also not sure it should be "beyond consideration" either.

 

[Forscher]

I do not have a stance on this issue. I am torn apart ( i also always feel symphatetic to both side of the issue). This is an issue that I would leave to the church (synod) to decide. As a member of a Lutheran church which is also member of LWF, I pray God really work something out of the upcoming ELCA conference.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

AS, you suggested that this should not be "beyond consideration."

CB's response places Scripture and the tradition it brings to full bear agsinst reason and experience.

If it is only reason and experience that calls to question the voice of Scripture on any subject, then how can it not be "beyond consideration"? H's stance are somewhat shakey unless human logic can make its case. But there is no case from Scripture that suggests it is time for a major shift. Otherwise Paul would have suggested it in Scriptures without the benefit of 21st century theologians who who have come with a new focus.

The Lutheran stance against outright enthusiasim has always been a potent one - until now. As you suggest, if pure unbridled enthusiasm is not outside the pale of the church, anything is indeed possible, except a church that follows the compass of Scripture and its confessions. That seems to being jettisoned out of the picture as you speak.

Peace,

Cos

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

AS, you suggested that this should not be "beyond consideration."

CB's response places Scripture and the tradition it brings to full bear agsinst reason and experience.

Peace,

Cos

I think CB's response what good in that it marked the underlying problem with his critique and this movement towards change, that is, experience trumping all.

But I thought his response became slightly generic in that he spent half the letter talking about other things and people who he was trying to connect Chilstrom to. He would have been better to keep directly on his letter. I felt it strayed at times into "CB's agendas & beefs" rather than a response to Chilstrom's reply.

Although when it was on topic it was right at the heart of the problem.

Pax

 

[Willy]

I read Carl Braaten's letter and I sense in it a man who is feeling increasingly left out of the church that he has been such a vital part of. It's hard when we feel like the church is moving on without me. Sometimes I feel that way when I go to the mall. Increasingly, the culture seems foreign to me. And that reminds me that I am going to die, that I at some point will not be present to shape the culture. It's depressing. Death often focuses us inward and causes us to live by fear. That focusing inward we legitimate with reference to "scripture" and "tradition." Others aren't people of the Word and of the tradition. We are. The issue, it appears to me, is not so much scripture and tradition but rather our loneliness in light of death. I wonder what trusting in the resurrection would mean for us as we deal with issues like the ones addressed by Chilstrom and Braaten?

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I read Carl Braaten's letter and I sense in it a man who is feeling increasingly left out of the church that he has been such a vital part of. It's hard when we feel like the church is moving on without me. Sometimes I feel that way when I go to the mall. Increasingly, the culture seems foreign to me. And that reminds me that I am going to die, that I at some point will not be present to shape the culture. It's depressing. Death often focuses us inward and causes us to live by fear. That focusing inward we legitimate with reference to "scripture" and "tradition." Others aren't people of the Word and of the tradition. We are. The issue, it appears to me, is not so much scripture and tradition but rather our loneliness in light of death. I wonder what trusting in the resurrection would mean for us as we deal with issues like the ones addressed by Chilstrom and Braaten?

I know CB is very frustrated over this document. How much of that is based on feeling unheard in a changing church I am unsure. But I'm not convinced that his argument is based on feeling left out. It seems to me to be more oriented towards the current tendancies of the ELCA to follow what he would call "the slide into liberal protestantism".

You can read his critique of the actual document and not of Chilstroms response at:
http://lutherancore.org/pdf/Braaten-critique-ELCA-task-force.pdf

You will see his issue is really on the lack of theological decisions.

Overall I think it is a good assessment, but I am not completely in agreement with some of CB's claims. His passion and critique though certainly reflect how concerned he is that this document will push this synod much further down that liberal movement.

He is a well educated and well respected Lutheran among the synods (I met him once at a conference at Concordia St. Louis where he was welcomed warmly), but he is also very frustrated with the ELCA. How long he will stay is unclear.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

If it is only reason and experience that calls to question the voice of Scripture on any subject, then how can it not be "beyond consideration"?

Except there are those who think the Scriptural commands against homosexuality were actually against heterosexually inclined persons engaging in homosexual acts for whatever reason (idolatry, drunken debauchery, to humiliate the "passive" person in the act, etc.)

Simple reason is not the only thing that makes this "beyond consideration". It is important to note that "beyond consideration" and "it should pass" are two completely different things. At one time, I am sure that "reason trumping Scripture" was the critic's claim of those who sought to allow women's ordination to the pastorate. It was not. For some, it MAY be the reason on this current issue of homosexuality, but for others, it is not, but rather, reason coupled with what they believe to be truer readings of Scripture than previous interpretations have allowed for.

So no, it should not be beyond consideration. But that does not mean that I believe it absolutely should pass, this new social statement.

The Lutheran stance against outright enthusiasim has always been a potent one - until now. As you suggest, if pure unbridled enthusiasm is not outside the pale of the church, anything is indeed possible, except a church that follows the compass of Scripture and its confessions. That seems to being jettisoned out of the picture as you speak.

First of all, please define for me outright enthusiasm. Not sure if that means "reason and emotion only doctrine" or "enthusiastic about the Gospel" or what. Secondly, while I will say that Scripture seems to condemn homosexual sex (especially male), I can see the room for it not being all about just the sex, or even about the sex at all (talking about not worshipping Molech by killing your children immediately before talking about homosexual sex would indicate a train of thought pertaining to idolatry rather than sheer morality of sexual behavior regardless of other religious factors, for example), I've not come across the section of the Confessions that condemn homosexuality.

Remember, Lutheranism was not started by merely accepting the status quo. Challenges were made. Challenges that we, today, see as being right, but at the time, were indeed scandalous and "jettisoning" the whole of Scripture in the minds of many. We can never simply close our eyes and pretend that we will never come to a crossroads like that again. Only by keeping them open and our attention focused, and having a willingness to confront any issue based on all merits of Scripture and reason and experience and tradition, can we truly ever move forward... even if we move forward to the point where we've already been.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I've not come across the section of the Confessions that condemn homosexuality.

Remember, Lutheranism was not started by merely accepting the status quo. Challenges were made. Challenges that we, today, see as being right, but at the time, were indeed scandalous and "jettisoning" the whole of Scripture in the minds of many. We can never simply close our eyes and pretend that we will never come to a crossroads like that again. Only by keeping them open and our attention focused, and having a willingness to confront any issue based on all merits of Scripture and reason and experience and tradition, can we truly ever move forward... even if we move forward to the point where we've already been.

1-Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral form of interpretation, not really the Lutheran. Ultimately the basis should be on Scripture above all else. Even when it goes against our tradition, or our reason, or even our experiences.
2-The confessions themselves might not condemn homosexuality, but what I see, and what CB sees is that the confessions do have things to say about relevant theological matters in the case of this document. One of the more notable ones is the understanding and distinction of Law and Gospel.
3-You posed some possibilities for what scripture might be saying about homosexuality, but the issue is you have just done more to defend the practice than the entire social statement did. CB in his critique of the actual social statement (linked in one of my former posts) says:
"There is no real theology in this social statement" and "There is not biblical exegesis in this social statement". Regardless of whether you condemn homosexuality or condone it, there is reason to be upset and concerned here. It is bringing about a drastic change in practice without any real evidence. To me this document cannot be accepted on those grounds.

When the ELCA truly wants to make this policy change, it needs to do so in a proper theological matter with scripture at the forefront of the argument, not so absent it is not even in the peripherals. You raise some issues to discuss in the homosexuality debate, the problem is instead of discussing them, they decided to agree to disagree.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

1-Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral form of interpretation, not really the Lutheran. Ultimately the basis should be on Scripture above all else. Even when it goes against our tradition, or our reason, or even our experiences.

It may not technically be Lutheran, but the sooner we admit that we use it, the better. Personally, I happen to be a Lutheran who ascribes to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and most of my doctrine still comes up Lutheran.

3-You posed some possibilities for what scripture might be saying about homosexuality, but the issue is you have just done more to defend the practice than the entire social statement did. CB in his critique of the actual social statement (linked in one of my former posts) says:
"There is no real theology in this social statement" and "There is not biblical exegesis in this social statement". Regardless of whether you condemn homosexuality or condone it, there is reason to be upset and concerned here. It is bringing about a drastic change in practice without any real evidence. To me this document cannot be accepted on those grounds.

Oh I know. And actually, this is why I personally, at this time, would have to vote (if I were a voting member) against the social statement. I may, in time, come to the conclusion that homosexuality in and of itself is morally neutral, but this social statement is not the way to get the church there, if it indeed should go there. Just to clear my own stance up a bit (I realize I've been kinda vague and all over the place on this, but it's been a prayer/meditative/studying process for me).

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

It may not technically be Lutheran, but the sooner we admit that we use it, the better. Personally, I happen to be a Lutheran who ascribes to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and most of my doctrine still comes up Lutheran.
quote]

But the issue is also, even if you use them all, and even Luther at times appealed to the others, that they should not hold equal ground. CB contends that the "liberals" are using reason and experience as the greatest forms and the "conservatives" use scripture and tradition. Personally I think it still should be scripture on the high ground and reason, tradition, and experience down below.

As much as I think it can be useful, I think the HC is much to blame for this leveling of scripture (if not lowering) with the other three methods of interpretation. But that is another rant.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

I think liberals tend to place a greater emphasis on reason and experience than conservatives, but I would hesitate to claim that many or the majority of them place those two things above Scripture. Some do, of course, but then some conservatives take "Scripture Alone" to a place it was never intended to go, forsaking all else including the possibility of a mis-interpretation of Scripture on their part.

Not sure about the current ELCA leadership, whether they are placing experience and reason and such on the same level as Scripture or above it. It appears that is what they are doing, appealing to reason or even emotions in a "live and let live" kind of way. Perhaps they are simply trying to contain the firestorm of controversy, but if so, they suck at it.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Not sure about the current ELCA leadership, whether they are placing experience and reason and such on the same level as Scripture or above it. It appears that is what they are doing, appealing to reason or even emotions in a "live and let live" kind of way. Perhaps they are simply trying to contain the firestorm of controversy, but if so, they suck at it.

Well said!

Hooray (sarcastic) for the ELCA....

 

[AngelusSax]

Let me add one thing:

I will remain ELCA regardless of what happens at the assembly in a few days. There is an LCMS option close by, but for my own opinion/theology/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, I place a much greater emphasis on open communion for all baptized Christians, and the allowance of the ordination of women, than the currently debated issue within the ELCA.

Besides, if I think it's in error on this, I can't ever hope to help change it by becoming a voting member if I leave altogether.

 

[Mr_E]

Let me add one thing:

I will remain ELCA regardless of what happens at the assembly in a few days. There is an LCMS option close by, but for my own opinion/theology/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, I place a much greater emphasis on open communion for all baptized Christians, and the allowance of the ordination of women, than the currently debated issue within the ELCA.

There are other options outside of the Lutheran denomination. I have a feeling the debate will soon be over soon as more and more people who are opposed to the changes leave the ELCA. Those who remain will be in agreement with each other.

 

[AngelusSax]

There are other options outside of the Lutheran denomination. I have a feeling the debate will soon be over soon as more and more people who are opposed to the changes leave the ELCA. Those who remain will be in agreement with each other.

There are, yes. For my location, the two closest denominations in terms of theology that are in affordable driving distance are United Methodist and Episcopalian... and the latter, if I understand correctly, is one step ahead of where the ELCA seems to be going in regards to this issue (though I may not have understood correctly, it happens).

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Besides, if I think it's in error on this, I can't ever hope to help change it by becoming a voting member if I leave altogether.

My thoughts exactly. I am committed to the ELCA and to reform within it. I'm glad to hear you are too.

Pax

 

[Mr_E]

My thoughts exactly. I am committed to the ELCA and to reform within it. I'm glad to hear you are too.

Pax

I admire that you guys are planning to stay and fight for what you believe is right. How do you plan to do this though? A part of me wants to stay and fight, but another part says its time to get out.

I have, in my own little way, tried to stay and fight. I even became the Council President at my church. I have not had any luck getting others to act like they really even care about this whole thing. In fact, I have wanted to get the congregation together to talk about what we believe in regards to the human sexuality issues, but the pastor quickly shot that idea down. I feel like all of my efforts have fallen on deaf ears. It kind of makes one think that God's plans do not include me leading my church in a fight against this thing.

So, if I'm not going to fight, that means I can either sit quietly and let my church go down a path that I believe is very much wrong and very much against the will of God, or I can leave. In the second scenario I might be able to find a church that is willing to follow God at all costs, rather than one that changes its Biblical beliefs to fit modern society.

 

[AngelusSax]

Well, I am still open to either side of this issue based on actual theology, not on the social statement's way of "addressing" the issue. However, for the purposes of this post, let's assume I come to the conclusion I once held firmly and dearly - that homosexuality is a sin in all its forms, and gays should be celibate or become straight.

In that scenario, I would fight by the use of open letters, for one. If I get enough gumption, I could drive to "HQ" and nail my 95 ideas to a door... surely the symbolism would not be lost if nothing else.

Also, I would try to get on church council and such. I would try to become a voting member of the general assembly in the future. My plans right now actually are leaning toward going to seminary, either for church music or M.Div. If I wind up M.Div, based on my discernment of call, then one day, as a pastor, I would be in a position to encourage my congregation to talk about this (and other) issue(s).

Perhaps I could strap on filthy underwear and run around the general assembly, saying that this is what we have become... I don't know.

All I do know is that there is one philosophy I hold to regardless of other circumstances: It doesn't matter in the end whether we win or we lose. It doesn't matter how many good things we do or how many people we help. None of it matters. And when nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do.

Please note: I do think our actions matter, but not for reasons of us atoning for our errors (I know, how "outside the box" of me, heheh). But even if we were to receive proof or revelation that our actions don't matter at all in determining any outcome of anything, either temporal or eternal, then all that matters is what we do.

To put it another way, even if you know your fight is a losing fight, as long as it is the good fight, then it is worth fighting.

 

[Forscher]

Let me add one thing:

I will remain ELCA regardless of what happens at the assembly in a few days. There is an LCMS option close by, but for my own opinion/theology/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, I place a much greater emphasis on open communion for all baptized Christians, and the allowance of the ordination of women, than the currently debated issue within the ELCA.

I too share the same emphasis on open communion and ordination of women when choosing church.

But I've been learning quite a lot out of this debated issue. I have learned things that I have never heard or really learned before about Lutheranism (considering my later Reformed upbringing), such as bound conscience, Right hand and Left hand of God, Law and Gospel. When you have a current hot topic/problem to solve, people try to bring out the best out of these principles, even though they may end at different conclusions. I am used to this kind of problem-based learning ( that's how they taught me in the Univ).

I have some links to share concerning the open letter, but I need 2 more posts to be able to post links. So let me junk on other threads first