The Southeast Iowa Synod Assembly (about 150 churches in the ELCA) was held June 12 and 13 in Waverly at Wartburg College.
Most people at our church wouldn’t know or care about the meeting. After all, it doesn’t really affect us, right? What trouble could a bunch of pastors, lay delegates and a bishop get up too?
For a more complete answer to that question, talk to Dwain and Dorothy Swanson, our lay delegates from Zion. They will be presenting their report in a forum this Sunday, June 21, at 9:15 a.m. in the Fellowship Hall at Zion. Knowing the Swanson’s well and having experienced what they experienced this past weekend, I’d title their presentation: “Why Dwain and Dorothy Will Never Go to Another Synod Assembly Ever Again.”
Yes, it was that bad. One issue dominated, as it has for the last nine years. Human Sexuality. Here’s the BIG QUESTION in my mind: Can conduct forbidden by Scripture (in this case, sex between people of the same gender whether “married” or not) be blessed by the Church? The answer, according to the Assembly, is yes, by 2/3 to 1/3 of delegates.
Now it’s true that the Proposed Sexuality Study and the changes it will necessitate in who can be a pastor and whether or not pastors can perform same sex unions will not be voted on by the Churchwide Assembly until August. But our experience at this Assembly along with the Twitter and Facebook feeds from other Synods who were meeting at the same time, all seem to indicate that the Study and the changes it will bring to the ELCA will pass.
Let’s be clear: I don’t really care about the issue per se. This isn’t about gay people and I’m not opposed to the Study because I don’t like gay people. I love them. I love them so much I want them to know Jesus and his healing. This is really about whether or not the Church should say, “To heck with the Bible! To heck with the word of God and 7,000 years of consistent teaching on this issue! We don’t care if the Bible calls it sin or not. We just want people to feel affirmed and be happy.”
So let’s just change the issue. Let’s say it’s alcoholism. The Bible says it’s wrong to get drunk. No dispute from anyone that alcoholism is a sin that breaks up families and ruins lives. Should the Church, for the sake of wanting the alcoholic to feel affirmed and happy, say, “To heck with the Bible! We just want you to feel affirmed and happy! Drink all you want!”
Or what about adultery? (That’s having sex with someone who isn’t your husband or wife). The Bible is not down with it. As a pastor, I can’t tell you how many times people have said to me, “But this is different! If I had met him/her first, I never would’ve married my husband/wife. I believe God brought this person into my life and he/she is my true love.” Should we say, “Gee, now that you brought God into it and you feel he did this to you, golly, maybe what you’re doing isn’t a sin at all. In fact, maybe it’s his will. Never mind about the body count that will result spiritually and emotionally from your betrayed spouse and kids. Let’s have a ceremony and bless this thing, because now you’ve found out who you really are supposed to be with and we want you to feel affirmed and happy.”?
The point here isn’t about sex or sexual orientation. It’s about the Bible. Either the Bible is the Word of God and you should submit to it’s teachings or it isn’t. In the ELCA we say, er, used to say, that the “Bible is the norming norm for all matters of faith and life.” We used to call it the “final authority.” I guess that just went out the window. We just un-sinned sin. Having done that, what need do we have of a savior? Gosh, if God made people sinners I guess that’s his problem and not ours. So who needs Jesus anyway? He was a great teacher, but that whole dying on the cross thing? Overkill. Who needs that?
For a decade we’ve been fighting this fight. Everything that can be said has been said. We’ve listened and listened and listened. We’ve prayed. We’ve sought unity and reconciliation. We’ve repented, we’ve been challenged to examine our hearts again and again. We’ve done everything but be obedient to what the Bible teaches. It still boils down to whether or not we’re going to submit to Scripture as God’s words or not. If some congregations decide they will submit and others won’t, well, what is the point of that denomination?
More later. Thanks for reading. God bless you. PJ
To see a response to the proposed ELCA Social Statement that mirrors my own thoughts, see:
To see the Proposed ELCA Social Statement on Sexuality, see:
To see what the proposed ELCA Social Statement means in practice, see:
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
What I Believe About the Church
1. I believe the local church is the hope of the world.
No one has the “words that give life”, the Gospel of life, the truth about Jesus, except us.
2. I believe the church is sustainable.
When we’re doing it right, there is enough to help the widows and orphans.
When we’re doing it right, people give to the church because it’s obviously of critical importance to them.
When we’re doing it right, there are enough people helping out that you can say “no” without feeling guilty.
3. I believe the church has a priceless treasure from God (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) stored in clay jars (us).
4. I believe the church is dynamic and not static.
Jesus himself equipped us to take his message to the world and while the message doesn’t change, the generations do and so does the way we present the message.
5. I believe the church is a warship and not a cruise ship.
Our struggle is spiritual and the forces of evil are arrayed against us.
Our job is not to make people feel happy and served but to make disciples who will in turn make disciples and so on until everything submits to Christ as Lord.
6. I believe the church is a mission outpost and not a family chapel.
We exist to make disciples of Jesus Christ in a world that is hostile to him and therefore to us and not simply to carry on our own family traditions and cultural and ethnic practices.
7. I believe that God made every church to glorify him by being unique.
We are all part of one body but as a part we have different giftings and different functions.
No one has the “words that give life”, the Gospel of life, the truth about Jesus, except us.
2. I believe the church is sustainable.
When we’re doing it right, there is enough to help the widows and orphans.
When we’re doing it right, people give to the church because it’s obviously of critical importance to them.
When we’re doing it right, there are enough people helping out that you can say “no” without feeling guilty.
3. I believe the church has a priceless treasure from God (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) stored in clay jars (us).
4. I believe the church is dynamic and not static.
Jesus himself equipped us to take his message to the world and while the message doesn’t change, the generations do and so does the way we present the message.
5. I believe the church is a warship and not a cruise ship.
Our struggle is spiritual and the forces of evil are arrayed against us.
Our job is not to make people feel happy and served but to make disciples who will in turn make disciples and so on until everything submits to Christ as Lord.
6. I believe the church is a mission outpost and not a family chapel.
We exist to make disciples of Jesus Christ in a world that is hostile to him and therefore to us and not simply to carry on our own family traditions and cultural and ethnic practices.
7. I believe that God made every church to glorify him by being unique.
We are all part of one body but as a part we have different giftings and different functions.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
What's the plan after Pastor Chris leaves?
First, let me be clear that what I'm proposing will first have to be approved by the elected leaders of the congregation on the Board of Spiritual Oversight, of which Pastor Chris and I are both members.
Because Chris and I are so close, I've been in on his discernment process from the beginning and have therefore been able to devote a lot of prayer and thought to this plan. At this stage of Zion's development, I wouldn't want to work with someone whom I didn't know. This is a moot point anyway, as our current financial situation really won't allow us to hire a seasoned professional. So what could God be up to? I think that his answer is this: we are being given the perfect opportunity to promote from within. We have two of our current staff involved in getting their M.Div degrees. Brent Osborne, our youth guy, and Tina Rasmussen, our director of adult discipleship. So what I propose is a two part plan:
First, Brent and Tina begin pastoral internships at Zion. Some of you will be familiar with this concept that is part of the education process within the Lutheran church. A seminary student serves at least a year under the supervision of a pastor in order to experience real ministry situations in the congregation. Some interns are given programming responsibilities and others are basically given churches to lead and their supervising pastor might be in another town. Each intern has an internship committee made up of members of the congregation who provide feedback and evaluation to the intern. I would like to see Tina and Brent moved into official roles of Intern Pastors and proceed toward their ordinations in 2010 and 2011 respectfully. Each would continue in their present responsibilities as well as taking on some additional pastoral responsibilities such as visiting and occasional preaching. Interns are compensated at a set rate that is within our ability to afford and this would allow us to actually pay Tina for what she has been doing at Zion for the last year already.
In the summers of 2010 and 2011, respectively, after having graduated from their programs and received their degrees, Tina and Brent will be ordained and able to fulfill full pastoral responsibilities as well as oversight of staff and programming to be determined. Each will be given the title: “Teaching Pastor.” I realize that some people will question why we need three pastors. I think it's important that everyone understand that it is not unusual for churches of Zion's size to have several pastors on staff, each one charged with responsibilities in different areas of programming. Their titles are usually something similar to "Missions Pastor" or "Children's Pastor" for example. They are on the church staff and serve as program directors but can also do pastoral acts like weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. I've had many titles over the years I spent at Hope. Over my tenure there I was: Teaching Pastor for Discipleship, Teaching Pastor for Adult Discipleship and Prayer and Missions, and Teaching Pastor for Care. It's a worthy model to follow and utilized by many churches.
Brent has a pastor's heart. He is incredibly gifted and is developing to be a great preacher. He preached almost every weekend last year at the Veritas service on Sunday nights. His abiding passion is in the care of souls, which we desperately need. I believe he is the right one to one day lead a ministry at Zion that offers care to people through a life changing relationship with Jesus Christ.
Tina is a gifted teacher who as a staff member at Hope had a 100 people attending her Bible study. She has just finished as a long time board member of Crossways International where she has been a protege of Harry Wendt, the founder of the Crossways curriculum, the best Bible survey material I have ever used. She has a background in leadership training and small groups. She has a lot to offer as a gifted teacher and preacher.
Pastor Chris' current duties will be distributed as follows: teaching: between Pastor John and Tina and Brent. Pastoral Care: between Brent and Tina. Missions: to BreeAnn Williams, our director of childrens discipleship who has a deep passion for missions and experience as well.
Tina will be tasked with the following: adult discipleship; leadership development; hospitality (which will include evangelism, coffee hour, transportation, information center, ushers); she will teach and preach; she will have some care responsibilities.
Brent will be tasked with the following: youth discipleship; supervision of Carli; continued development and oversight of our cradle to grave discipleship plan; preaching and teaching; care responsibilities.
BreeAnn will be tasked with the following: kids discipleship; oversight of nursery; missions.
I will be tasked with the following: vision, staff, preaching and teaching, leadership development, and care.
In addition, Stephen Ministers will come on board this spring and will be tasked to help with visitation to hospitals and the home bound as well as being assigned one on one relationships. We'll ask the Prayer Team to step up efforts to meet and pray with people on Sundays and Wednesdays before surgeries and so on.
My inspiration several years ago was to find a strong preacher and teacher who would help me address our greatest need: to get into the Word. We’ve really been blessed to have Chris with us. I estimated Christ would be here 3-5 years but obviously God had other plans and so basically shy of 2 years, he’ll be leaving us. But I know that this is the right move for Chris and his family and for the kingdom of God. Brent and Tina will make excellent preachers and will grow into their roles. It will take practice, which means they need time and opportunity. Zion will be raising up and equipping new leaders for the whole Church and not just our congregation.
The second part of this plan has to do with finding someone to begin to take over our youth ministry program in the fall of 2010. I'd like to find a young candidate in need of formation and opportunity who will meet our immediate needs with the intent of raising him/her up through the ranks. More about this second step in my next blog. Thanks for reading. God bless you. PJ
Because Chris and I are so close, I've been in on his discernment process from the beginning and have therefore been able to devote a lot of prayer and thought to this plan. At this stage of Zion's development, I wouldn't want to work with someone whom I didn't know. This is a moot point anyway, as our current financial situation really won't allow us to hire a seasoned professional. So what could God be up to? I think that his answer is this: we are being given the perfect opportunity to promote from within. We have two of our current staff involved in getting their M.Div degrees. Brent Osborne, our youth guy, and Tina Rasmussen, our director of adult discipleship. So what I propose is a two part plan:
First, Brent and Tina begin pastoral internships at Zion. Some of you will be familiar with this concept that is part of the education process within the Lutheran church. A seminary student serves at least a year under the supervision of a pastor in order to experience real ministry situations in the congregation. Some interns are given programming responsibilities and others are basically given churches to lead and their supervising pastor might be in another town. Each intern has an internship committee made up of members of the congregation who provide feedback and evaluation to the intern. I would like to see Tina and Brent moved into official roles of Intern Pastors and proceed toward their ordinations in 2010 and 2011 respectfully. Each would continue in their present responsibilities as well as taking on some additional pastoral responsibilities such as visiting and occasional preaching. Interns are compensated at a set rate that is within our ability to afford and this would allow us to actually pay Tina for what she has been doing at Zion for the last year already.
In the summers of 2010 and 2011, respectively, after having graduated from their programs and received their degrees, Tina and Brent will be ordained and able to fulfill full pastoral responsibilities as well as oversight of staff and programming to be determined. Each will be given the title: “Teaching Pastor.” I realize that some people will question why we need three pastors. I think it's important that everyone understand that it is not unusual for churches of Zion's size to have several pastors on staff, each one charged with responsibilities in different areas of programming. Their titles are usually something similar to "Missions Pastor" or "Children's Pastor" for example. They are on the church staff and serve as program directors but can also do pastoral acts like weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. I've had many titles over the years I spent at Hope. Over my tenure there I was: Teaching Pastor for Discipleship, Teaching Pastor for Adult Discipleship and Prayer and Missions, and Teaching Pastor for Care. It's a worthy model to follow and utilized by many churches.
Brent has a pastor's heart. He is incredibly gifted and is developing to be a great preacher. He preached almost every weekend last year at the Veritas service on Sunday nights. His abiding passion is in the care of souls, which we desperately need. I believe he is the right one to one day lead a ministry at Zion that offers care to people through a life changing relationship with Jesus Christ.
Tina is a gifted teacher who as a staff member at Hope had a 100 people attending her Bible study. She has just finished as a long time board member of Crossways International where she has been a protege of Harry Wendt, the founder of the Crossways curriculum, the best Bible survey material I have ever used. She has a background in leadership training and small groups. She has a lot to offer as a gifted teacher and preacher.
Pastor Chris' current duties will be distributed as follows: teaching: between Pastor John and Tina and Brent. Pastoral Care: between Brent and Tina. Missions: to BreeAnn Williams, our director of childrens discipleship who has a deep passion for missions and experience as well.
Tina will be tasked with the following: adult discipleship; leadership development; hospitality (which will include evangelism, coffee hour, transportation, information center, ushers); she will teach and preach; she will have some care responsibilities.
Brent will be tasked with the following: youth discipleship; supervision of Carli; continued development and oversight of our cradle to grave discipleship plan; preaching and teaching; care responsibilities.
BreeAnn will be tasked with the following: kids discipleship; oversight of nursery; missions.
I will be tasked with the following: vision, staff, preaching and teaching, leadership development, and care.
In addition, Stephen Ministers will come on board this spring and will be tasked to help with visitation to hospitals and the home bound as well as being assigned one on one relationships. We'll ask the Prayer Team to step up efforts to meet and pray with people on Sundays and Wednesdays before surgeries and so on.
My inspiration several years ago was to find a strong preacher and teacher who would help me address our greatest need: to get into the Word. We’ve really been blessed to have Chris with us. I estimated Christ would be here 3-5 years but obviously God had other plans and so basically shy of 2 years, he’ll be leaving us. But I know that this is the right move for Chris and his family and for the kingdom of God. Brent and Tina will make excellent preachers and will grow into their roles. It will take practice, which means they need time and opportunity. Zion will be raising up and equipping new leaders for the whole Church and not just our congregation.
The second part of this plan has to do with finding someone to begin to take over our youth ministry program in the fall of 2010. I'd like to find a young candidate in need of formation and opportunity who will meet our immediate needs with the intent of raising him/her up through the ranks. More about this second step in my next blog. Thanks for reading. God bless you. PJ
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Becoming a Church that Disciples
What would it be like to be a church that had as it’s primary focus making disciples? Oh, I know most churches think that’s what they do but I’m not convinced that’s what is actually happening. A disciple of Jesus is one who follows Jesus and learns from him and in whom Jesus has complete control of the daily agenda and life. I think most of us in church-world think that if people come to church they must be disciples. But I haven’t experienced that to be the case ever.
How would we go about “making disciples” and not just members?
Jesus’ method was to take 12 men and pour his life and teaching into them for about three years. He also kept them on the move. Interesting. Not sure what to do about the “on the move part.” Part of being church today is to have a facility. Facilities don’t move. But I’m not ready to engage in a discussion about whether or not buildings help or hurt discipleship. We’ll tackle that one another day.
Jesus’ didactic style was to say: Follow me. Now watch. Now you try. Now go and do likewise. The style would be fun to try. Not sure how it works in the “classroom” settings we have. We usually just lecture. Sometimes we give homework. But we never really get around to “go and do.” Oh, sure, we like to think that people will apply what we’ve lectured on, but will they? Another discussion for another day.
What would be the curriculum? A series of questions?
#1: Who is Jesus? Seems important if we are to be making his disciples.
Who are you? The work of Jesus on the cross gives you the opportunity to be a child of God, a disciple, a new creation in Christ.
What are you good at? What spiritual gifts has the Holy Spirit graced you with? How can they be employed in the Body of Christ?
Who are you discipling/training/mentoring? In other words, as you have been taught, now teach. Sort of that go and do thing applied for the multiplication of leader/disciples.
I suppose that additional work would need to be done on “how to minister to others” and then something about how to minister to yourself - that is, how to keep yourself hardwired to Jesus; the practice of spiritual disciplines and so on. How to develop a personal devotional life, in other words.
After three years, the disciples would be released to disciple - well, sort of, as with #4 they ought to have been doing it as we go along...
This certainly is a different way of learning. Thanks for reading. Stay tuned. God bless.
PJ
How would we go about “making disciples” and not just members?
Jesus’ method was to take 12 men and pour his life and teaching into them for about three years. He also kept them on the move. Interesting. Not sure what to do about the “on the move part.” Part of being church today is to have a facility. Facilities don’t move. But I’m not ready to engage in a discussion about whether or not buildings help or hurt discipleship. We’ll tackle that one another day.
Jesus’ didactic style was to say: Follow me. Now watch. Now you try. Now go and do likewise. The style would be fun to try. Not sure how it works in the “classroom” settings we have. We usually just lecture. Sometimes we give homework. But we never really get around to “go and do.” Oh, sure, we like to think that people will apply what we’ve lectured on, but will they? Another discussion for another day.
What would be the curriculum? A series of questions?
#1: Who is Jesus? Seems important if we are to be making his disciples.
Who are you? The work of Jesus on the cross gives you the opportunity to be a child of God, a disciple, a new creation in Christ.
What are you good at? What spiritual gifts has the Holy Spirit graced you with? How can they be employed in the Body of Christ?
Who are you discipling/training/mentoring? In other words, as you have been taught, now teach. Sort of that go and do thing applied for the multiplication of leader/disciples.
I suppose that additional work would need to be done on “how to minister to others” and then something about how to minister to yourself - that is, how to keep yourself hardwired to Jesus; the practice of spiritual disciplines and so on. How to develop a personal devotional life, in other words.
After three years, the disciples would be released to disciple - well, sort of, as with #4 they ought to have been doing it as we go along...
This certainly is a different way of learning. Thanks for reading. Stay tuned. God bless.
PJ
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Spiritual State of Zion
In a couple weeks we’ll spend some time talking about how we’re doing as a church. Are we following Jesus together? Are there things we should be doing differently? It’s called “The Spiritual State of Zion” message and here is a preview:
There are four priorities which need to be addressed and addressing them will require some resources. They are: Scripture, Leadership Development, Communication, and Love.
Scripture: As a congregation, Zion is incredibly hungry for the Word of God. And we need more of it. We need our people to be immersed in it. Not just at church on Sunday or Wednesday, but every day in time spent in the Word. The most recent and comprehensive study of spiritual growth in churches indicates that at every stage of spiritual growth, Scripture is critical. We have done a good job of beginning, but we need to continue and build upon what we’ve done and move now from teaching and preaching into application. We also need others to help us teach and challenge others to get into the Word. Which is why leadership development in critical for us.
Leadership Development: To be a disciple of Jesus is to be a leader. All of us are called to follow him. And all of us are called to “make” disciples. That is a leadership role. We need leaders on every level: teachers of the Bible, small group leaders, Godly leaders of various ministries, leaders who are called by God to start new ministries and inspire others to follow them. We also need to be sure that Christian parents understand their leadership role in bringing their children to faith. We need new elders and board members. We need mentors and disciplers.
Communication: In order to share the vision we have across three services and to those who don’t attend every single week, we need to develop new and improve existing methods of communication. It is also necessary that we customize communication to fit specific groups within the church like visitors, youth and children. We have been given a developing vision of the church to communicate and we need to spend time and resources developing and improving our style and methods.
Love: Scripture tells us that God loved the world so much he gave us Jesus. We need to learn to love the world the way God does. Not the way the world wants to be loved (unqualified acceptance and license), but in a godly way. Our failure to be able to do a better job reaching out beyond our own walls is less about organization or structure or resources then it is about our hearts. Our hearts, as a congregation, aren’t soft enough yet. How do we get the very heart of God within us? Jesus tells us: Love one another. So I understand this to mean that love starts at home and moves outward. We love the ones right here first and somehow that begins a heart transformation process that leads us into the lives of our neighbors and to those we meet along the way. My analysis is that the staff has come a long way in truly loving each other. Now it’s time for the boards to love each other, and then the congregation as a whole. Then, I think, the Holy
Ghost will invite us to leave this place and go out into the world and share the love of Christ and it won’t be compelled or guilt ridden, it will be freeing and joyful and exuberant and we will surpass everything we can imagine as our hearts and lives are opened up to this kingdom work.
Thanks for reading. Come to Zion on May 17 for the rest of the story. God bless you.
PJ
There are four priorities which need to be addressed and addressing them will require some resources. They are: Scripture, Leadership Development, Communication, and Love.
Scripture: As a congregation, Zion is incredibly hungry for the Word of God. And we need more of it. We need our people to be immersed in it. Not just at church on Sunday or Wednesday, but every day in time spent in the Word. The most recent and comprehensive study of spiritual growth in churches indicates that at every stage of spiritual growth, Scripture is critical. We have done a good job of beginning, but we need to continue and build upon what we’ve done and move now from teaching and preaching into application. We also need others to help us teach and challenge others to get into the Word. Which is why leadership development in critical for us.
Leadership Development: To be a disciple of Jesus is to be a leader. All of us are called to follow him. And all of us are called to “make” disciples. That is a leadership role. We need leaders on every level: teachers of the Bible, small group leaders, Godly leaders of various ministries, leaders who are called by God to start new ministries and inspire others to follow them. We also need to be sure that Christian parents understand their leadership role in bringing their children to faith. We need new elders and board members. We need mentors and disciplers.
Communication: In order to share the vision we have across three services and to those who don’t attend every single week, we need to develop new and improve existing methods of communication. It is also necessary that we customize communication to fit specific groups within the church like visitors, youth and children. We have been given a developing vision of the church to communicate and we need to spend time and resources developing and improving our style and methods.
Love: Scripture tells us that God loved the world so much he gave us Jesus. We need to learn to love the world the way God does. Not the way the world wants to be loved (unqualified acceptance and license), but in a godly way. Our failure to be able to do a better job reaching out beyond our own walls is less about organization or structure or resources then it is about our hearts. Our hearts, as a congregation, aren’t soft enough yet. How do we get the very heart of God within us? Jesus tells us: Love one another. So I understand this to mean that love starts at home and moves outward. We love the ones right here first and somehow that begins a heart transformation process that leads us into the lives of our neighbors and to those we meet along the way. My analysis is that the staff has come a long way in truly loving each other. Now it’s time for the boards to love each other, and then the congregation as a whole. Then, I think, the Holy
Ghost will invite us to leave this place and go out into the world and share the love of Christ and it won’t be compelled or guilt ridden, it will be freeing and joyful and exuberant and we will surpass everything we can imagine as our hearts and lives are opened up to this kingdom work.
Thanks for reading. Come to Zion on May 17 for the rest of the story. God bless you.
PJ
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Random Thoughts From My Last Two Posts
This has been an intense week since my last post. Several things have cause me to continue to reflect on what I’ve written in the last two blogs.
First, recalling a past conversation on a list serve on which I am a lurker. The idea being expressed by fellow pastors who share many of the same theological and biblical prejudices was that we Christians couldn’t make gay marriage a big issue because we would loose our “right” to talk to the younger generations who feel strongly about gay rights and equality. I think this is what concerns Rick Warren in his recent “about face” regarding his support for Prop 8 in California.
I suppose the answer came in a subsequent conversation with a colleague. “You won’t have a seat at the table by betraying what you believe,” he said. And I think he’s right on the money. Yes, the “young” are far more likely to embrace social license and call it equality. But the next generation also has no time or respect for those who betray what they believe in order to be hip. They’ll see right through those “Bible believing Christians” who are fudging on the issue of gay marriage and rightly call them hypocrites. I think we will do much better as stewards of the Gospel by being true to what we profess we believe, namely that the Bible is True and is the authority for us in how we are to live, if we stick to our guns and say about gay marriage, “It isn’t part of God’s design.” That is biblical truthful, faithful, and not hateful. It simply states what we believe.
Second, to back this up, a recent article in Leadership Journal caught my eye. In that article, a Muslim professor at a Christian Seminary (yes, you read that correctly) stated that in his experience, Christians frequently were willing to compromise their beliefs in order to prevent others from feeling “uncomfortable.” This is his response to that kind of behavior, which, in my opinion, has taken over the Church:
“If you enter a ministerial gathering as a Christian minister and downplay your Christian identity in an attempt to make everyone comfortable, as a Muslim leader, I’m immediately suspicious. I don’t trust you. Embracing your identity as a Christian creates safety for me to be Muslim.” - Eboo Patel, McCormick Theological Seminary and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core.
Patel goes on to remind Christians: “If you don’t use the Christian narrative to define reality for your people, then someone else will define reality for them with a different narrative.” This is most certainly true. We have allowed those proponents of gay marriage to define the entire debate in terms of “feelings” and not kept the debate centered around Jesus, who loves sinners but doesn’t leave them hostage to their sin.
Finally, a good conversation on FB with a great friend who is Roman Catholic. He follows my blog and has written the following in three or four different responses:
“I think it isn't so much re-defining (christian) marriage in light of the same sex stuff as it is reclaiming the original meaning. The (christian) Church was the arbiter of marriage until this power was ceded to the state. The state was, after all, more favorable to divorce than the Church. Call it the law of unintended consequences, 500 years on.
“Some might argue that this was (in part) the original motive of moving marriage from church authority to state authority (convenience). The state no longer recognizes the authority of Scripture. A democratic state is by nature interested in equal protection of its citizens. Seems to me this same sex stuff is only the natural outcome of transfering this authority to the state (which in addition to being arbiter of divorce includes the ability to define it). Perhaps the mistake on the part of some sects is in too closely identifying with state authority and too willingly cedeing authority over marriage to the state? The only way out I see is the theological way...
“I think the answer is theological. legal contracts don't make a marriage because it is a spiritual covenant - i.e., God is the third party, not the government. In short, because marriage is covenant and not a contract, government doesn't define it. God defines it. Government can only define a contract, not a covenant.
“We need a theology of marriage that is not dependent upon the civil contract. In Mexico (and all over Latin America), couples go to the courthouse the week before their church wedding to finalize their civil union, which can only be done before a civil judge. Interestingly, couples don't generally regard this as their wedding date. They regard the day of their church wedding is the start of their marriage. Marriage as Sacrament needs to be restored...a marriage begins when Jesus is invited into the relationship, not when the papers are signed because it is a covenant, not a contract.”
I argued in my previous blog that supporting gay marriage as a denomination means that we nullify Scripture. And as a Reformation Church that staked everything, including our identity, on the authority of Scripture, that leaves us with no reason to do mission because we have no Holy Book, no reason to exist. Without Scripture, as a Reformation Church, we have no reasonable basis on which to base our identity. If we can pick and choose what we like and don’t like about Scripture, then that means that we can pick and choose what is true and what isn’t, and if that’s the case, there is no reason to believe that Jesus was right when he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”
My dear Catholic friend responds from the heart of his tradition, which, unlike my own, gives equal standing to the tradition of the church along with Scripture. He writes, “Losing the Authority of Scripture is a particularly difficult problem where tradition has no authority. I see the "slippery slope" argument here. What else is left?”
Indeed. Thanks for reading. God bless you. PJ
First, recalling a past conversation on a list serve on which I am a lurker. The idea being expressed by fellow pastors who share many of the same theological and biblical prejudices was that we Christians couldn’t make gay marriage a big issue because we would loose our “right” to talk to the younger generations who feel strongly about gay rights and equality. I think this is what concerns Rick Warren in his recent “about face” regarding his support for Prop 8 in California.
I suppose the answer came in a subsequent conversation with a colleague. “You won’t have a seat at the table by betraying what you believe,” he said. And I think he’s right on the money. Yes, the “young” are far more likely to embrace social license and call it equality. But the next generation also has no time or respect for those who betray what they believe in order to be hip. They’ll see right through those “Bible believing Christians” who are fudging on the issue of gay marriage and rightly call them hypocrites. I think we will do much better as stewards of the Gospel by being true to what we profess we believe, namely that the Bible is True and is the authority for us in how we are to live, if we stick to our guns and say about gay marriage, “It isn’t part of God’s design.” That is biblical truthful, faithful, and not hateful. It simply states what we believe.
Second, to back this up, a recent article in Leadership Journal caught my eye. In that article, a Muslim professor at a Christian Seminary (yes, you read that correctly) stated that in his experience, Christians frequently were willing to compromise their beliefs in order to prevent others from feeling “uncomfortable.” This is his response to that kind of behavior, which, in my opinion, has taken over the Church:
“If you enter a ministerial gathering as a Christian minister and downplay your Christian identity in an attempt to make everyone comfortable, as a Muslim leader, I’m immediately suspicious. I don’t trust you. Embracing your identity as a Christian creates safety for me to be Muslim.” - Eboo Patel, McCormick Theological Seminary and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core.
Patel goes on to remind Christians: “If you don’t use the Christian narrative to define reality for your people, then someone else will define reality for them with a different narrative.” This is most certainly true. We have allowed those proponents of gay marriage to define the entire debate in terms of “feelings” and not kept the debate centered around Jesus, who loves sinners but doesn’t leave them hostage to their sin.
Finally, a good conversation on FB with a great friend who is Roman Catholic. He follows my blog and has written the following in three or four different responses:
“I think it isn't so much re-defining (christian) marriage in light of the same sex stuff as it is reclaiming the original meaning. The (christian) Church was the arbiter of marriage until this power was ceded to the state. The state was, after all, more favorable to divorce than the Church. Call it the law of unintended consequences, 500 years on.
“Some might argue that this was (in part) the original motive of moving marriage from church authority to state authority (convenience). The state no longer recognizes the authority of Scripture. A democratic state is by nature interested in equal protection of its citizens. Seems to me this same sex stuff is only the natural outcome of transfering this authority to the state (which in addition to being arbiter of divorce includes the ability to define it). Perhaps the mistake on the part of some sects is in too closely identifying with state authority and too willingly cedeing authority over marriage to the state? The only way out I see is the theological way...
“I think the answer is theological. legal contracts don't make a marriage because it is a spiritual covenant - i.e., God is the third party, not the government. In short, because marriage is covenant and not a contract, government doesn't define it. God defines it. Government can only define a contract, not a covenant.
“We need a theology of marriage that is not dependent upon the civil contract. In Mexico (and all over Latin America), couples go to the courthouse the week before their church wedding to finalize their civil union, which can only be done before a civil judge. Interestingly, couples don't generally regard this as their wedding date. They regard the day of their church wedding is the start of their marriage. Marriage as Sacrament needs to be restored...a marriage begins when Jesus is invited into the relationship, not when the papers are signed because it is a covenant, not a contract.”
I argued in my previous blog that supporting gay marriage as a denomination means that we nullify Scripture. And as a Reformation Church that staked everything, including our identity, on the authority of Scripture, that leaves us with no reason to do mission because we have no Holy Book, no reason to exist. Without Scripture, as a Reformation Church, we have no reasonable basis on which to base our identity. If we can pick and choose what we like and don’t like about Scripture, then that means that we can pick and choose what is true and what isn’t, and if that’s the case, there is no reason to believe that Jesus was right when he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”
My dear Catholic friend responds from the heart of his tradition, which, unlike my own, gives equal standing to the tradition of the church along with Scripture. He writes, “Losing the Authority of Scripture is a particularly difficult problem where tradition has no authority. I see the "slippery slope" argument here. What else is left?”
Indeed. Thanks for reading. God bless you. PJ
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Abandonment of Discipleship in the Denomination
Last blog: the Iowa Supreme Court decision that insists same sex marriage is a right. This blog: our denomination's (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)) decision to try and amend our code of clergy conduct to include the ordination of openly gay and lesbian pastors and to permit the blessing of same sex unions. Oddly enough, the Iowa Supremes mentioned divisions within the Church on the topic of same sex unions as one of the reasons they thought they should order the practice to be allowed. Please, bishops of the ELCA, don't ever tell me again that there is no harm in discussing things like this. Behold! The results of your openness to discuss what is contrary to Scripture: the Iowa Supremes used you and other alleged spiritual leaders as justification for their decision.
Let's be clear about something from the very beginning. Jesus doesn't allow his followers to hate anyone. The opposition that I as a pastor and that Zion Church has to what is being called Gay ordination and the blessing of same sex unions isn't motivated by hate. It's motivated by our love for the Scriptures which identify homosexual (sexual) relations as a sin and our love for our neighbors and brothers and sisters who are being sold a bill of goods by those who have sworn an oath to teach and preach God's Word. Our argument is not against those engaged in the lifestyle, rather, our argument is with those who are teaching others to ignore Scripture and leading them down a path that leads to disaster. We are simply on record as believing that because such activities are forbidden by Scripture, the Church has no business practicing them or condoning them. Simply put, our high view of Scripture means that we trust God's Word above human wisdom. Those whom we oppose in this argument elevate human wisdom and feeling above Scripture.
As part of our efforts to call the denomination back to biblical faithfulness, we send letters to other churches hoping to inform them of what is going on within the denomination. Our opinion is that many of the people in the pews simply have no idea what the leadership of the denomination is doing. One such letter recently elicited a response from a pastor who told us that there was no prohibition against homosexuality in the Greek of the New Testament. While the term 'homosexual' wasn't developed until the 19th century, the various Greek words describing same sex relationships in the original Greek are quite clear and it's quite clear that such activity is forbidden. No serious scholar can disagree that the Bible says what it says. It's sinful behavior, period. It ranks right up there with adultery, murder, gossip, slander, false witness, stealing and other sins.
Since the Bible is so clear about calling it a sin, the proponents of Gay ordination and the blessing of same sex unions have only two arguments that remain:
1.) The Holy Spirit is doing something new here. God wants us to unsin homosexual acts because he has changed his mind about them. This represents a new initiative on God's part. The Holy Spirit has spoken to some of the leaders of the church through the witness of the Gay community and they are being led by Him to change the rules and their interpretation of Scripture. My goodness. If I made such an argument about anything else, I'd be defrocked. This argument doesn't even take on Scripture, it ignores it and claims "new revelation" as the basis for decision making in these matters. As one scholar said to me, "We believe that the Apostle Paul wasn't fully informed about the science behind being Gay." You can see why those of us who have a high view of Scripture cringe at this argument. What it means is that God has more to say than sending us Jesus. I can't even conceive of something more un-Lutheran or un-Orthodox biblically and theologically.
2. ) The second argument is the argument from feelings. Since we are called to love everyone we also have to accept their behaviors. Because people feel bad when we tell them their actions are sinful, we need to allow them to continue in their sinful actions as a way of affirming who they are. Wow. According that argument, there will be no more life change or conversion or even repentance in the Church. People won't be radically changed by an encounter with Christ, they will just keep on being the same. This denies the power of the resurrection, the very power of Christ. Yes, we need to love people, that is clear. But Jesus loved people so much he never left them as he found them, he left them changed. Can you imagine Jesus going up to the woman caught in adultery whom he had just saved from being stoned and instead of saying, "Go and sin no more," saying, "Go and keep on sinning"? This second argument denies the power of Jesus to forgive sins by unsinning sins and saying that some behaviors, previously sinful, no longer need his forgiveness. It also denies the power of Jesus to heal. The argument basically says, "this group of people over here is fine without your help, Jesus. They really aren't sick after all despite what Scripture says."
Here is where this leads: When you fail to believe what Scripture labels as sin isn't sin, how can you believe Scripture when it says that through Jesus you can be saved? You simply can't pick and choose what Scriptures you want to believe and which ones you reject. Scripture itself condemns that practice. And if you believe that there are people whose sins don't require forgiveness, are you not making a mockery of the suffering and sacrificial death of our Savior?
I know there are a lot of feelings about these issues. But I invite us all to take this debate back to Scripture. Ultimately the question at stake isn't Gay ordination or same sex unions, it's about whether or not we'll believe our own Holy book. If we don't believe it or pick and choose what we believe from it, how can we expect any one else to be swayed by it either? We won't make a single disciple by saying, "This is our Holy Book, we only believe half of it." And if we have no Holy Book, then we have no Holy Gospel, no Holy Savior, nothing to offer a world lost in great darkness.
Every survey of spiritual growth says the same thing: the one thing that is necessary for growing closer to God is a high view of Scripture. Why on earth would the denomination open the doors it has and then trample upon the Word of God? It defies explanation.
Thanks for reading. Please continue to pray that the Truth will carry the day. God bless you.
PJ
Let's be clear about something from the very beginning. Jesus doesn't allow his followers to hate anyone. The opposition that I as a pastor and that Zion Church has to what is being called Gay ordination and the blessing of same sex unions isn't motivated by hate. It's motivated by our love for the Scriptures which identify homosexual (sexual) relations as a sin and our love for our neighbors and brothers and sisters who are being sold a bill of goods by those who have sworn an oath to teach and preach God's Word. Our argument is not against those engaged in the lifestyle, rather, our argument is with those who are teaching others to ignore Scripture and leading them down a path that leads to disaster. We are simply on record as believing that because such activities are forbidden by Scripture, the Church has no business practicing them or condoning them. Simply put, our high view of Scripture means that we trust God's Word above human wisdom. Those whom we oppose in this argument elevate human wisdom and feeling above Scripture.
As part of our efforts to call the denomination back to biblical faithfulness, we send letters to other churches hoping to inform them of what is going on within the denomination. Our opinion is that many of the people in the pews simply have no idea what the leadership of the denomination is doing. One such letter recently elicited a response from a pastor who told us that there was no prohibition against homosexuality in the Greek of the New Testament. While the term 'homosexual' wasn't developed until the 19th century, the various Greek words describing same sex relationships in the original Greek are quite clear and it's quite clear that such activity is forbidden. No serious scholar can disagree that the Bible says what it says. It's sinful behavior, period. It ranks right up there with adultery, murder, gossip, slander, false witness, stealing and other sins.
Since the Bible is so clear about calling it a sin, the proponents of Gay ordination and the blessing of same sex unions have only two arguments that remain:
1.) The Holy Spirit is doing something new here. God wants us to unsin homosexual acts because he has changed his mind about them. This represents a new initiative on God's part. The Holy Spirit has spoken to some of the leaders of the church through the witness of the Gay community and they are being led by Him to change the rules and their interpretation of Scripture. My goodness. If I made such an argument about anything else, I'd be defrocked. This argument doesn't even take on Scripture, it ignores it and claims "new revelation" as the basis for decision making in these matters. As one scholar said to me, "We believe that the Apostle Paul wasn't fully informed about the science behind being Gay." You can see why those of us who have a high view of Scripture cringe at this argument. What it means is that God has more to say than sending us Jesus. I can't even conceive of something more un-Lutheran or un-Orthodox biblically and theologically.
2. ) The second argument is the argument from feelings. Since we are called to love everyone we also have to accept their behaviors. Because people feel bad when we tell them their actions are sinful, we need to allow them to continue in their sinful actions as a way of affirming who they are. Wow. According that argument, there will be no more life change or conversion or even repentance in the Church. People won't be radically changed by an encounter with Christ, they will just keep on being the same. This denies the power of the resurrection, the very power of Christ. Yes, we need to love people, that is clear. But Jesus loved people so much he never left them as he found them, he left them changed. Can you imagine Jesus going up to the woman caught in adultery whom he had just saved from being stoned and instead of saying, "Go and sin no more," saying, "Go and keep on sinning"? This second argument denies the power of Jesus to forgive sins by unsinning sins and saying that some behaviors, previously sinful, no longer need his forgiveness. It also denies the power of Jesus to heal. The argument basically says, "this group of people over here is fine without your help, Jesus. They really aren't sick after all despite what Scripture says."
Here is where this leads: When you fail to believe what Scripture labels as sin isn't sin, how can you believe Scripture when it says that through Jesus you can be saved? You simply can't pick and choose what Scriptures you want to believe and which ones you reject. Scripture itself condemns that practice. And if you believe that there are people whose sins don't require forgiveness, are you not making a mockery of the suffering and sacrificial death of our Savior?
I know there are a lot of feelings about these issues. But I invite us all to take this debate back to Scripture. Ultimately the question at stake isn't Gay ordination or same sex unions, it's about whether or not we'll believe our own Holy book. If we don't believe it or pick and choose what we believe from it, how can we expect any one else to be swayed by it either? We won't make a single disciple by saying, "This is our Holy Book, we only believe half of it." And if we have no Holy Book, then we have no Holy Gospel, no Holy Savior, nothing to offer a world lost in great darkness.
Every survey of spiritual growth says the same thing: the one thing that is necessary for growing closer to God is a high view of Scripture. Why on earth would the denomination open the doors it has and then trample upon the Word of God? It defies explanation.
Thanks for reading. Please continue to pray that the Truth will carry the day. God bless you.
PJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)