Just Insert “Lutherans”

I think this short article applies equally well to the Lutheran Church.

Timotheos

Curse Your Branches (Just Not the One On Which You’re Standing)

Reading reviews [for example, here and here] of David Bazan’s latest disc, Curse Your Branches, it is easy to get the point: whereas Bazan used to write explicitly “Christian” songs (whatever it means for a song to be “Christian”), he has now entered a new stage of maturity where he doesn’t merely accept all the things he was once taught; now he uses his music to question his previous assumptions and explore what it means for him to still believe in God.

A few notes about the music itself: the full songs were interesting to hear after listening to Bazan sing them live with only a guitar (e.g., on the Live at the Grey Eagle set that he made available on his website).  The musical progression is as clear as his religious progression.  This is not Pedro the Lion, nor even Fewer Moving Parts.  The full instrumentation includes a lot of nuance that will take multiple listens to catch.  The background choral vocals on “Bless This Mess” seem sort of out of place on a David Bazan album, probably due to how strange they would be on a Pedro the Lion CD.  (For me, David Bazan was Pedro the Lion, so I don’t make a big distinction between his various lyrical incarnations.)  Nevertheless, the choral vocals fit well once the listener has had a chance to reconcile this sound with what Bazan has done before.  As in the past, the darker lyrical tone often conflicts with the upbeat and swiftly moving music, which has the effect of stopping the listener dead at times, especially when singing along!  His music is as easy to listen to and as catchy as always (if you don’t find yourself humming “Bless This Mess” or “Please, Baby, Please” incessantly, you should check your pulse).

What Does Faithfulness Mean?

Hopefully, this will be my last comment on the whole ELCA thing for a while.  The fallout may be just beginning, although in the first few days, I have my doubts.  Witness this article in the Grand Forks Herald. Anyone who thought the laity was going to save the ELCA better look for another hero.  One lady in a rural North Dakota parish had this to say:

[Edith] Anderson said she’s not open to arguments about what can be said to be right or wrong based just on Scripture.

“What the Bible is is an interpretation of people. To me, it’s not God’s word. It didn’t come out of His mouth. It’s all in how you interpret it.”

That seems to be the attitude of most of the ELCA at the moment.  Who can say?  So I’ll just go from my own instincts and feelings.  Why even belong to a church, then?  Why not just go home and meditate on the gurglings in your stomach?  Of course, if you’ve been indoctrinated with “the Bible is not God’s Word” for twenty years, is such a sentiment really unexpected?

In fact, the past twenty years are really at the heart of this whole mess.  When the ELCA’s predecessor bodies ordained women, they said exactly the same things as they were saying at this CWA.  They were arguing based on their daughters’ experiences of being rejected when they felt “called.”  They were arguing based on their emotional responses to seeming injustice and inequality.  They were wielding the “gospel” against the Scriptures.  They were fighting those nasty “law” proof-texts with Galatians 3:28 (apparently, the proof-text to end all proof-texts).  And there are pastors and people in the ELCA who are surprised at how far their church body has fallen?  They have been entering full communion with any and all takers, and sharing the Lord’s Table with anyone who believes anything about Jesus in the name of “love,” and they’re surprised that people just don’t care what the Scriptures have to say?

Frankly, they made this bed before 2005 (say, circa 1970…1950?), and now they are struggling with whether to sleep in it.  Well, this is how I measure the faithfulness of those who fought this battle to the bitter end: how quickly can you pack your things and get out?  (I say that, knowing that it takes some time to figure out how to get it done.  God bless those who are working on it.)  I’m tempted to say that I know it’s difficult, and that if my church body did the same thing, I’d struggle with leaving.  But I have to say that that would be a lie.  I would feel only the slightest qualms, because I have allegiance to the LCMS only as it holds to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.  As soon as this church body leaves those, I leave it.  (That day may, of course, come at any time.)  But the LCMS has the opposite problem of the ELCA.  Whereas the ELCA has officially approved heterodoxy and officially condoned what God has condemned, there are still some congregations that bravely struggle on.  The LCMS, on the other hand, officially holds to the whole Scriptures and the whole Book of Concord, while there are congregations who have jettisoned both for the sake of numbers, relevance, and worship-tainment.  I guarantee, as soon as the LCMS officially abandons the teachings of the Scriptures or the Confessions (ultimately, to abandon the Confessions is to abandon the Scriptures), I’m done.

The clock cannot be rewound, and some in the ELCA are awakening to that fact.  Others, however, are not, and I have a hard time understanding.  Perhaps a pastor will say that he (she) is staying for the sake of the people; but is that loving, or is it selfishness?  Will they be left to the wolves when you are gone?  (And you will be gone some day.)  Is it not better to show them that their church has left them behind, along with the Scriptures, and there is no going back.  I humbly suggest that there has never been a church this far gone that has drawn back from the abyss.  It simply doesn’t work that way.  To quote someone, “God gave them over…”

So, want to be faithful?  There is only one choice: leave the ELCA.  And if you want to be Lutheran, then there’s no room in Rome.  Besides, Rome won’t be any better than the LCMS if you really think female clergy-type persons are good and closed Communion is evil.  To quote someone else, “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”

Timotheos

The Press on the CWA

Here’s the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and here’s the Grand Forks Herald.  Here’s a picture of the damaged steeple–I think that’s more than just a “piece.”  (Symbolic?  You make the call.  It was the steeple of the church where Goodsoil was having its “eucharist.”)  And here’s the link to John Piper’s interpretation.

Timotheos

How Many Will There Be?

Here’s one (along with part 2).  Here’s a congregation [I realize that this was four years ago].  I’ve also seen at least a couple on the ALPB discussion boards.  Here’s a website for those considering leaving.  And here’s WordAlone’s advice.  I wonder if anyone’s keeping track…

Timotheos

The Death Knell of the ELCA

I suggest that this means the effective end of the ELCA.  The proposals from the Sexuality Task Force now only need to have a simple majority to pass.  According to some of the speakers, women’s ordination was passed by a simple majority as well.  Unless God intervenes by His grace, these proposals will be passed.  The ELCA will then join the Episcopal Church in its further apostasy.

But who is surprised?  It’s like Jenga: you can remove one or two or even a few blocks, but eventually the weight cannot be sustained.  The only thing that remains unresolved is, what will pastors and members of ELCA congregations who oppose the recommendations now do?

Timotheos

Two-thirds or Not Two-thirds?

The ELCA is currently debating (at 9:19 pm) whether to accept or reject the sexuality proposals based on a regular 50 + 1 majority or a 2/3 “super-majority”…  This is probably the most important vote of the week.  Stay tuned…

Timotheos

Whither Hence for the ELCA?

That’s the question, and, although I have my suspicions, I don’t think anyone can really call it at this point.  The two votes which most people will be watching are those on whether to accept a “social statement” (probably roughly the same thing as an LCMS CTCR document) which would effectively bless relationships between two people of the same sex (essentially making a same-sex relationship the equivalent of marriage), and whether to amend the ELCA’s constitution to explicitly allow the ordination of persons who are in open homosexual relationships.  The items up for a vote are here, with more information.  (The actual Task Force recommendation on changing the ministry standards is here.)  Probably the most important vote will be on rules and procedures, and whether to adopt the proposals with a simple majority or 2/3.

There are a number of letters going around trying to influence the vote one way or the other.  There is the Open Letter being circulated by WordAlone and CORE.  There is the dialogue/debate between Herbert Chilstrom and Carl Braaten, both ELCA pastors/professors.  There is a letter from ELCA seminarians.  And a letter from Hispanic ELCA pastors.  Again, it seems that many more prominent ELCA pastors/members are opposing the proposals than supporting them, but it all depends on the voting members of the Assembly.

Now, I respect that there are faithful members of the ELCA willing to stand up for a seemingly unpopular position contra the homosexual agenda (witness this on the ELCA website; interesting timing, don’t you think?  C’mon, practically all the clergy support the proposals!  At first, I questioned the idea of a 2-1 lay-clergy membership of the Assembly; now, I think it may be the only thing that saves the day.)  I respect them, however, as I respect brave people on a sinking ship.  It may not quite be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but the iceberg is right there, nonetheless.  And I have to agree with the former bishop Chilstrom on the CORE Open Letter, regarding ecumenical relationships.  What makes the signers of the letter think that homosexual pastors will make those relationships grow cold, if female clergy-type persons and the church insurance paying for clergy abortions didn’t?  Not to mention sharing altars and pulpits with the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ(!).  Surely, if the Lord’s Supper couldn’t persuade the ELCA to think twice about relationships with Rome and Constantinople, homosexual pastors shouldn’t either (especially if the “gospel” demands it).  I know the ELCA has been more involved in semi-official talks with Rome than, say, the LCMS (something we should remedy), but I can’t believe Rome would consider real fellowship with a church body that has priestesses.  Or a church body that does not discipline those that contravene even its modest rules.  (See here for a list of homosexuals who have been ordained and serve[d] ELCA congregations without or with little discipline.)

Whatever happens this week, know this: the homosexual lobby is as patient as they come.  If not this year, then two years from now.  If not then, then two years more.  This ain’t going away, and if the voting members know that, they might just as well show their exhaustion and say ‘to hell with it.’

I also wonder, incidentally, what a ‘yes’ vote will mean for heterosexuals who want to live with their ‘partners’ outside of marriage?  Certainly a double standard cannot exist, can it?

Timotheos

“This holy martyr, St. Robert Barnes”

[Today is the recommended day in Treasury of Daily Prayer to remember Robert Barnes, Confessor and Martyr]

Preserve, O Lord, Your honor,/the bold blasphemer smite;/ Convince, convert, enlighten/The souls in error’s night./Reveal Your will, dear Savior,/To all who dwell below,/Great light of all the living,/That all Your name may know. (“Preserve Your Word, O Savior” [LSB 658:2])

Robert Barnes–Englishman, erstwhile royal chaplain to Henry VIII–was one of the first martyrs for the Lutheran confession of the Faith.  Luther wrote,

This Dr. Robert Barnes we certainly knew, and it is a particular joy for me to hear that our good, pious dinner guest and houseguest has been so graciously called by God to pour out his blood and to become a holy martyr for the sake of His dear Son.  Thanks, praise, and glory be to the Father of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, who again, as in the beginning, has granted us to see the time in which His Christians, before our eyes and from our eyes and from beside us, are carried off to become martyrs (that is, carried off to heaven) and become saints. …

Let us praise and thank God!  This is a blessed time for the elect saints of Christ and an unfortunate, grievous time for the devil, for blasphemers, and enemies, and it is going to get even worse.  Amen. (Treasury of Daily Prayer, 574-575)

Timotheos

“‘This is the faith we were taught’”

“You see, everything went wrong last year at Nicaea.  It was terribly important.  I don’t exactly know why.  [Pope] Sylvester isn’t interested in that sort of thing.  He didn’t even trouble to go himself, just sent deputies, and they were of no help.  You see, none of the Western bishops have got a new idea in their heads.  They just say: ‘This is the faith we were taught.  It is what’s always been taught.  And that’s that.’  I mean they don’t realize they’ve got to move with the times.  It’s no use trying to puncture the horologium.  The church isn’t a hole and corner thing anymore.  It’s the official imperial religion.  What they were taught may have been all very well in the catacombs, but now we have to deal with a much more sophisticated type of mind altogether.  I don’t pretend to understand what it’s all about but I know the council was a great disappointment even to Gracchus [Constantine]…

He hadn’t the least idea what was going on at Nicaea.  All he wanted was a unanimous vote.  Well, half the council wouldn’t argue and wouldn’t listen.  Eusebius told me all about it.  He said the moment he saw them sitting there he realized it wasn’t worth reasoning with them.  ‘That’s the faith we’ve been taught,’ they said.  ‘But it doesn’t make sense,’ said Arius.  ‘A son must be younger than his father.’  ‘It’s a mystery,’ said the orthodox, perfectly satisfied, as if that explained everything.  And then there was the resistance group.  Of course everyone admires them tremendously.  It’s wonderful what they went through.  But, I mean, just having an eye out and a foot off doesn’t qualify one in theology, does it?  And of course Gracchus being a soldier had a sort of extra respect for the resistance.  So what with them, and the sold Middle-West and the frontier bishops–there weren’t many of them but they are the most pigheaded of the lot–the stupid old diehards won hands down and Gracchus got his unanimous vote and went off happy.  Only now he realizes that nothing has really been settled at all.  A general council was just the worst way to tackle a problem of this kind.  It ought to have been settled quietly in the palace and then announced in an imperial decree.  Then no one could have objected.  As it is we shall have all sorts of technical difficulties in putting things right.  All that invoking of the Holy Ghost put things on the wrong footing.  It was purely a question of practical convenience to be settled by Gracchus.  I mean, we must have progress.  Homoiousion is definitely dated.  Everyone who really counts is for homoousion–or is it the other way round?  If Eusebius were here he would tell us.  He always makes everything so clear.  Theology’s terribly exciting but a little muddling.  Sometimes I almost feel a little nostalgic for the old taurobolium, don’t you?”

The Empress Fausta (in Helena, Evelyn Waugh, 133-135)

[Timotheos]