ELCA Churchwide Assembly--Wednesday

The morning plenary session led off with the first ballot for Vice President of the ELCA, a position currently held by Mr. Carlos Pena of Texas. Although Mr. Pena received 607 votes (686 were needed for election on the first ballot), we will need to take a second ballot on this key lay, "volunteer" position when we re-convene on Thursday>

The new president of the Lutheran Youth Organization, and the 21 participants in the Youth Convocation that is going on concurrently with the CWA did great work greeting the assembly--always a bright spot on the agenda. Bishop Susan Johnson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada greeted the assembly, inviting us all to join in a wonderfully slow and soft singing of the Doxology (great harmony in this vast assembly hall).

Two of the better presentations this morning were the stirring words of greeting from U.S. Navy Chaplain Harry Griffith and ELCA Secretary, David Swartling. Describing the Office of the Secretary as the "oil in the engine of the ELCA," Secretary Swartling showed a map outlining his state-by-state travels in his first two years as ELCA Secretary---from subzero temps in Fargo to Houston at 110 degrees!

The bulk of the afternoon session focused on discussion of and amendments to the proposed social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. By my count three (mainly editorial) amendments to the document were passed, and three amendments were defeated.

The amendment that received the most debate was one proposed by Virginia Synod Bishop James Mauney. He moved amend lines 620ff. to read (describing our historic position on marriage) "...The historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions have taught and recognized marriage as a normative, lifelong covenant between a man and a woman... (the amendment adding the words "have taught" and "normative, lifelong.") The Mauney amendment would have also added the following sentence at line 628: "Marriage thus provides the possibility for the added blessing of children and the joy and responsibility for raising them in the faith."

Much of the criticism of the Mauney amendment focused on that last sentence which some in the assembly "heard" as being critical of or exclusionary toward married couples who for whatever reason can't have children....or of situations where children are born outside of marriage. In the end the assembly defeated this amendment by a vote of 432 in favor, 563 opposed.

Once all amendments had been dealt with, the social statement itself was discussed. Although I went to a queue to offer my own comments critical of the social statement, debate was closed off before I had a chance to speak. Here is the message I planned to deliver:

"Let me begin by thanking the task force and staff for the patient, resilient ways they addressed their long, arduous, multi-part task. It is not surprising to me that over the course of 7+ years one-third of the task force members have 'turned over.' I hope that future assemblies will avoid asking one task force to take on so large a task.

"I also want to acknowledge that there are some very helpful things in this statement....such as the way it helps us see that there are more than two positions, more like four positions, on homosexuality....and I also affirm the stirring words in this document concerning commercial sexual exploitation, the "commodification of the body," and similar topics. Thank you for that.

"But I also must register some concerns about this document.

"First, I look for a social statement as a theological document to have THEOLOGY clearly evident as the Windows "operating system" throughout the whole document, helping us and the members of the wider society who may be listening in to think more thoughtfully and deeply with the Word of God leading the way. It strikes me that there are sections of this document, particuarly toward the end of it, where I felt as though the train had left the station, but the theological cargo didn't get loaded.

"Second, I look for a social statement as a teaching statement to use the best tools from our Lutheran treasure-chest, and if new modes of reflection are proposed, to build good bridges to them FROM time-honored Lutheran ways of doing ethical reflection. At several points I wish this document did a better job at that. To cite just one example, our rich Lutheran understanding of 'orders of creation' deserves something more noble than the kind of 'burial' that it gets here in footnote #11.

"Third, it seems to me that this statement tends to move us away from saying that there is throughout the scriptural and confessional witness a FORM to sexual relationships that we are confident has the blessing and command of God. It seems to me that there is proposed in this document no FORM of sexual expression that grounds us, serves as our North Star reference point....but instead we are directed to certain qualities of all kinds of sexual relationships (of whatever form)--that they be loving, committed, faithful, etc (all good things, by the way!)

"That subtle move away from the 'formfulness' of human sexuality is perhaps most troubling to me because I believe it will diminish our capacity to address faithfully other, future issues regarding human sexuality that will surely arise in the years to come. I suspect that many ELCA Lutherans who are not present with us in this assembly hall would agree with me in this concern. Thank you."

During the extended debate on the sexuality statement, two of the most amazing things happened. First, during the mid-afternoon, a tornado briefly touched down in Minneapolis--damaging part of the Convention Center roof (we were safe the whole time, but could hear the sirens)....AND damaging the spire of nearby Central Lutheran Church. Amazing!

But then, in the early evening, when we finally took our vote on the social statement, as amended (requiring a 2/3 majority vote, based on the ELCA Constitution), I witnessed something I had yet to see: Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson being stunned by the outcome of the vote: 676 in favor, and 338 opposed. The vote percentages were 66.67% YES and 33.33% NO.

"

ELCA Churchwide Assembly--Tuesday

The first full day of the Churchwide Assembly began with Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson's oral report to the assembly. Bishop Hanson set a positive tone for the Gathering, challenging voting members and visitors to ponder the question--throughout the week--"What shall be our witness here?" Stressing that the story of the assembly was not yet written, he challenged everyone to pray and ponder the story they would be sharing "back home" of what happened here.

Then the assembly moved into an extended Quasi Committee of the Whole consideration of the proposed social statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. Although Bishop Hanson encouraged voting members to avoid discussion of the yet-to-come Recommendation on Ministry Policies (regarding the possible rostering of gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships), I noticed that most of the speakers during the Committee of the Whole time still focused their comments on the pros and cons of possible changes in the ELCA's policies toward gays and lesbians.

Tuesday afternoon featured reports on the Lutheran Malaria Initiative, funding for the ELCA's work on HIV/AiDS, and a great presentation by Lutheran World Relief President John Nunes, a pastor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod leading this joint ELCA-LCMS relief agency. Tuesday afternoon and evening afforded voting members and visitors the chance to attend two rounds of hearings on key assembly business items.

ELCA Churchwide Assembly--Monday

Over 1000 voting members from across the 65 synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America gathered here in Minneapolis for the 11th Churchwide Assembly (CWA).

Bishops of the church actually joined with ELCA Church Council, synod vice presidents and selected churchwide staff members for some pre-assembly meetings on Sunday (August 16) and Monday morning (August 17). In addition to hearing an update from the Board of Pensions regarding ways the stock market downturn have affected pension fund performance, the group heard a financial report from ELCA Treasurer Christina Jackson-Skelton. I was pleased to learn that our NW MN Synod was one of 17 (out of 65) synods that have remitted more mission support dollars to the ELCA thus far in 2009 than we did in the same time period of 2008.

Following a celebrative opening service of Holy Communion and supper, the first plenary session of the assembly convened at 7 p.m. on Monday in the Minneapolis Convention Center. Early in the session we learned that nearly half (48.97%) of voting members were attending their first CWA. Twin Cities host bishops Craig Johnson and Peter Rogness welcomed the CWA participants and announced that, as a welcome gift to all the visiting Lutherans, the two metro synods were purchasing and planting 66 trees in the cities in honor of the 65 synods and the churchwide organization.

The major business item on Monday evening was an amendment to the Rules of Organization proposed by Allegheny Synod Bishop Greg Pile that would have required a 2/3 majority (super-majority) to approve the Recommendation on Ministry Policies scheduled for consideration on Friday. Many folks lined up at the green (agree) and red (disagree) microphones, and a lengthy discussion of the merits of the Pile amendment ensued.

I had a chance to speak in favor of the Pile amendment, and here is the substance of what I said:

"Over a year ago—long before we knew just what ministry policy changes might be proposed—the NW MN Synod Council voted to ask the ELCA Church Council to propose a 2/3 voting requirement on any changes in ministry policies we might consider at this assembly. We took this action because we sensed that if policies are changed, a 2/3 vote will indicate how seriously and carefully we have addressed this important topic.

"Let me also offer an opinion regarding the apparent contradiction between requiring a 2/3 vote of this assembly—even though the policies in question were originally approved by the ELCA Church Council by simple majority votes.

"The behaviors that are either affirmed or forbidden for ministers in Vision and Expectations and Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline did not emerge out of the clear blue when the Church Council drafted and approved these documents. These behaviors, rather, represent the 'wisdom of the ages'—articulated again and again in our Bible, our creeds, our confessions and the ministerial standards to predecessor church bodies.

"To cite a couple of non-sexual examples: Lutherans in North America didn’t start to require their ministers not to steal or not to break pastoral confidences in the early 1990s, because the ELCA Church Council approved a couple of documents. The force of those documents, comes not just from a vote by the ELCA Church Council—but rather, the force of these documents arises from the time-honored, faithful wisdom embodied in those documents. We will do well, if we wish to amend any of the substantial content of these documents, to hold ourselves to the highest level of consensus in decision-making."

After about an hour of debate the amendment finally came to a vote, and it was defeated by a vote of 436 in favor of the amendment, 584 opposed. To many of us this vote seemed to be an "early indicator" of the way things might go on subsequent votes--on the proposed social statement on human sexuality and the Recommendation on Ministry Policies.

A Response to Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

A Response to Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

It’s summer and the ELCA is embroiled in another extended discussion of human sexuality. We do this sort of thing at least every other year (whenever a Churchwide Assembly is scheduled), and it’s been going on for decades now. Sex must be a big deal in our church.

But no, we nervously respond, sex really isn’t that big a deal—at least it shouldn’t be. Sex and what we believe about sex “is not the gospel,” we say. It is a penultimate thing. How our church decides about issues of human sexuality should not be a church-dividing matter, we contend. In fact, if we repeat that loudly enough and often enough—“Human sexuality is not a church-dividing issue!”—we hope it may even come to pass. People will settle down, “monitor their anxieties” and stop talking about division in the church over something as secondary as sexuality. Sex isn’t really that big a deal, after all!

But it is, dear friends. And we best come clean about that.

Sex is a big deal. In the biblical narrative—the story of our salvation—sex is, at almost every turn, a big deal. It may not be the gospel, but human sexuality is forever entwined with, always bumping up against the good news of God’s extravagant love and grace, told in the story of Israel and Israel’s greatest son, Jesus, and in the ongoing life of the New Israel into which we have all been grafted. Sex is always a big deal in that story. Sex stories abound in the Bible!

Sex is intimately bound up with the good news of our creation by God. It is not just that, in the creation narratives, God’s making of the first humans is the creation of a sexually-paired duo, who are immediately commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) It’s not just that we bear the image of our creator God as a complementary, male-and-female dyad (Genesis 1:27). Sex is intimately bound up with my creation and your creation. When Martin Luther defines the meaning of the First Article of the creed, he begins by saying that “I believe that God has created me….” In the wondrous love, in the amazing sexual congress between Hans and Margarethe Luther, little Martin was created by God. And we all know that to be true for our own lives—it’s as basic as that. I am here, writing these words, because my parents, Lawrence and Roberta, met, fell in love, married and conceived me.

Sexuality imbues our most startling images for God’s redemption of us and the whole human family, in Jesus Christ our Lord. Searching for the most powerful, memorable images for the relationship between God and God’s redeemed people, the apostolic writer speaks of Christ the bridegroom and his bride, the church (Ephesians 5:32). How could that image not pop up, given the Old Testament’s predilection for speaking of God’s conjugal relationship with Israel, (Isaiah 54:5) his spouse?

In the new community that Jesus Christ has created at the Cross and the Empty Tomb, the language so often chosen for our relationships with one another is grounded in our existence as sexual beings who beget and nurture sons and daughters, sisters and brothers. Such use of family-based similes and metaphors in describing the church makes us nervous, but to ignore or downplay them is to overlook much of the language of the New Testament. Sexuality is never far from the center in Christian existence.

Sex is a big deal in the ordinary lives of human beings, created, redeemed and sanctified by God. Sexuality is elemental, foundational, necessary to our existence as human beings. It’s not just that we’re “obsessed with sex” (though there is truth in that); it’s that sex is a big deal because the “complementarity” of males and females, men and women, is hard-wired into the fabric of our creation by God. Sexuality is the means by which God begets sons and daughters, heirs of the Kingdom, dwellers in the New Creation in Jesus Christ.

And, at the risk of over-simplification, most of our greatest social issues in the 21st century are rooted in sexual matters. Mountains of sociological data point to the fact that as things go in what Alan Carlson and others call the “natural family,”[1] so goes society as a whole. If we care about children, we will care about the parents who beget them and the families that nurture them—simple as that. Which means that we will care deeply about the ordering of sexual attraction between men and women, we will commend marriage to the next generation, and we will do all within our power to strengthen marriages and families.

All of us in the human community have a stake in that; but members of the Body of Christ have a particular stake in that. What we believe, say and do in the realm of human sexuality can—rather than tearing the church apart—build us up in love and make us more faithful servants in God’s mission. Heavens--how we handle the issue of human sexuality might even make us a more attractive, faithful, caring church—the kind of church people might want to join!

Sexuality may not be the gospel, but it is a big deal—and we ignore that at our peril. Sexuality is bound up with the question of the human future—the begetting and the rearing of the next generation. Sexuality furnishes the most pungent similes and metaphors in Scripture for describing the intimate, self-giving love of God for the human family. Relationships grounded in human sexuality—husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons—are woven throughout the biblical story. How our church, how any church, treats marriage and family life will either enhance or detract from our service in God’s mission in the world. Make no mistake: sex is a big deal!

So, I ask, how have we in the ELCA done in formulating a social statement on human sexuality? Has our great church produced a great document that does justice to the gravity and grace of human sexuality? Have we in the ELCA addressed as powerfully and as richly as possible the real social issues that arise from our life as sexually-differentiated human beings? Are we now poised to be a church that has something powerful to say to our society in the early 21st century about the wonder of human sexuality and the tremendous possibilities of well-ordered sexual lives, for the sake of our human future? Are we ready to speak confidently, compellingly to our society as a church that still believes that “the Lord God in his goodness created us male and female, and by the gift of marriage founded human community in a joy that begins now and is brought to perfection in the life to come?”[2]

Alas, as I read Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, I cannot honestly say that we have done our best to plumb the heights and depths of human sexuality so as to say something meaningful and compelling to the society in which we live. As a colleague in ministry put it, only we Lutherans could take something as exciting as sex and write about it in such a pedestrian way.

Let me name three deep concerns that I have about Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.

1. Framing the Issue. Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, although proposed to us as a theological teaching document consistently fails to exhibit a deep engagement with and thoughtful appropriation of the Lutheran theological treasury. The rich law-gospel dialectic for which Lutherans are known is not the “operating system” in this teaching document. The document sets aside—in a footnote, no less![3]—our time-honored understanding of “orders of creation” as deep, dynamic, caring structures that God has built into the Creation to bring forth and sustain human life in all its multi-form abundance. In the place of such profound theological and ethical categories, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust sees everything sexual through the sociological lens of “trust in relationships” or “social trust.” (The word “trust” shows up nearly two hundred times in the document!) Now, to be sure, social trust is a very good thing! Even thoughtful pagans will agree to that. But “social trust” is scarcely a suitable “lens” for a distinctively Christian or churchly word about human sexuality.

2. Sidestepping the Question of Form. The Western Christian tradition has consistently held that human sexuality has about it a normative shape or form. By privileging one form of sexual expression—the one-flesh bond of a man and a woman united in marriage—the tradition has ruled out every competing form of sexual expression. Although this strikes our modern sensibilities as being unfair, the heterosexual structure of human sexuality is actually a divine gift, intimately bound up with the civilizational task of bringing forth and rearing the next generation of human beings. Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, however, sidesteps the notion that there even is a normative form of sexual expression. All that counts is the quality of sexual relationships (be they heterosexual, homosexual or whatever)—that they be loving, committed, monogamous, lifelong, etc. Driven by the desire to normalize gay and lesbian relationships, this document effectively removes our grounds for critiquing, let alone ruling out, other forms of sexual expression. Perhaps, therefore, we should not be surprised that the following words don’t show up even once in this document: bestiality, bisexual, incest, masturbation, or polygamy. (By the way, “singles” are mentioned only three times in the document!)

3. Downplaying the Fruitfulness of Sexuality. Although Human Sexuality: Gift and Task speaks often of families (the word “family” shows up nearly fifty times), it says little about just how such families come into existence. An extra-terrestrial could read the section on Marriage: Shelter and Context for Trust (lines 607-750) and still not realize that procreation is integral to marriage. Again, the vocabulary of the document is telling: the words “conceive” and “intercourse” each show up just once, “birth” appears four times, and “mother” and “father” are each mentioned three times. It is amazing to me that a proposed social statement on sexuality can speak so often about intimacy but so seldom about generativity. What a rare opportunity we are missing to teach our young ones about the marvelous crucible for begetting and nurturing children that God graciously gives to us in the “first institution” of holy matrimony!

So, with regret, I must register my deep disappointment with this proposed social statement. Our church has invested tremendous “capital” in this project—both money and human capital—with precious little to show for our efforts. The fault here should not be laid solely at the doorstep of the task force that has drafted this document. They are good and decent people, charged with a daunting task, and asked to discharge their duties in the unsettled atmosphere of a society-wide debate over one small aspect of human sexuality, i.e. the place of persons who identify themselves as gay and lesbian within our church and our society. For far too long, our over-focus on homosexuality has been the “tail wagging the dog”—making it hard, if not impossible, for our church to address adequately the whole gamut of human sexuality.

By dwelling on peripheral matters, we have squandered the opportunity to speak compellingly to the heart of the most important issues of human sexuality in our time. We have failed to muster the maturity and thoughtfulness needed to address adequately the issue at hand. We as a Lutheran church body are capable of doing so much better than this!
.
[1] http://www.profam.org/THC/xthc_tnf.htm

[2] Liturgy for marriage, Lutheran Book of Worship, p. 203.
[3] Footnote 11 in Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.

Something Old..New...Borrowed...Blue

Wedding Homily for Aaron and Kristen/August 8, 2009/First Lutheran Church, Sioux Falls, SD.

Lessons: Colossians 3:12-17; Philippians 2:1-4 and 4:4-9; John 15:9-12

In the name of Jesus. Amen.

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue…
You’re wearing all those things, right, Kristen? I’ve been dropping hints for months now that you better do that. You need to be wearing something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue.—for good luck, of course, on your wedding day. (Aaron—you’re off the hook on this one. It’s a “bride thing.” Just nod, smile and agree-- OK?)

For over four centuries, you see, brides have been meeting grooms at altars with something old (representing the legacy of your ancestors), something new (pointing you to your future), something borrowed (because you owe so much to so many) and something blue….blue because..well…because “blue” rhymes with “new” and this is a poem, don’tcha know?

Well that’s all kind of fun stuff, but I’m here to tell you that you guys are going to need a lot more than luck to make this marriage-thing work. And fortunately Someone is here today who has brought, is bringing and will continue to bring you more than good luck.

God is here today, and that’s the best news of all. God has showed up for your wedding day.

And God intends to keep showing up in your new life together as husband and wife.

And because God never shows up empty-handed, God brings gifts along for the ride….four gifts in particular. Think of them as your first four wedding gifts—and you don’t even have to wait until tomorrow to open them up. No—God is plopping them down in your laps right here, right now.

First, God has something OLD for you--older than the hills, in fact. It’s your identity as children of God. Before the first star began to twinkle God was thinking of you, scheming and finagling how to call you forth, claim you and reclaim you in Christ, and make you his precious children forever.

Your reading from Colossians addresses you as “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved” because that’s who you are in the eyes of the One who countsmore than anyone else. God has promised “from of old” to be your God, to lay hold of you, and give you a future without end in Jesus Christ.

How awesome it is that you’re wearing this identity so publicly today, in a service of worship (not a “chapel of love” ceremony), anchored in God’s grace and centered in the Holy Communion that will be your first meal as husband and wife.

God also has something NEW wrapped up for you today, and that’s the gift of forgiveness. In your marital toolbox, dear children, there is nothing more useful! But please notice: this forgiveness must always be new, because—believe me!—you’ll need a fresh supply of it every day.

Here’s why forgiveness has to be ever-new: it’s because you’re both sinners--precious, lovable, treasured, really very cool sinners….but sinners, through and through!....and I could provide rich documentary evidence of that fact….but I won’t!

If all goes well in your marriage you will live together with such honesty and abandon that there’ll be no hiding just how good you both are at sinning!

Aaron, because he’s a guy, will regularly need some “cave bear” time, as all men do. And Kristen, because she’s a girl, will need to tell Aaron everything on her mind, even when Aaron’s heard it all before…and you’ll both drive each other nuts and wonder why you ever thought you could love each other for a whole lifetime...

Then, precisely then, you’ll need a daily dose of the kind of fresh forgiveness that only God gives. Yesterday’s forgiveness will not do—yesterday’s forgiveness is like stale pizza with green mold on it in the back of the fridge!

God doles out forgiveness in daily doses like bread, water, oxygen, cell phone minutes and all the other necessities of life. God intends for you to share only NEW words, only FRESH declarations of forgiveness to one another.

To the something OLD and something NEW, God also adds something BORROWED: the best hand-me-down there is: the “you-first” love we call agape.

Now I realize that love might not seem to be “on loan” because it feels like it just springs up from deep inside you….especially that romantic, tingly, electric love of newlyweds….but what God wants for you today is more than the passionate chemistry of young love. God intends that you abide in a deeper love that will bind you together through thick and thin, the “you-first” love we call agape.

Your gospel reading from John speaks of this love’s “pass-it-on nature: “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you…” says Jesus, even as he adds a friendly command: “Love one another as I have loved you.”

God’s fourth gift to you is something BLUE…as in “true blue”--loyal, and dependable. This something BLUE is God’s gift of faithfulness, which is at the heart of marriage. It’s the most important word you’ll speak to each other today: “I promise to be faithful to you…”
Faithfulness is about more than “not cheating,” or not having a “wandering eye.” It’s about forsaking every person or thing that might come between you—forsaking even good stuff like work, study, pastimes or good causes—forsaking them whenever they might threaten your marriage.

God, who has “faithfulness” down pat, graciously imparts to you the gift of “true blue” faithfulness that will see you through all that is to come.

Your identity as children of God…fresh forgiveness….”you-first” love…and sturdy faithfulness—something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. Aren’t God’s gifts better than any old “good luck charms?” They’re your first wedding gifts—from God’s own hand—and as you live into these gifts you will receive the full, free, rich life God has in store for you--this day and always.

In the name of Jesus. Amen.

Filling the Jesus-Shaped Hole

Trinity Lutheran Church, Pelican Rapids, MN
August 2, 2009
John 6:24-35

In the name of Jesus. Amen.

It’s been said that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world up into two kinds of people….and those who don’t!

Reducing anything to just two choices—either this or that—is always dangerous. Life is always more complex than that. Where some see just two options, others easily perceive four, five, six or more possibilities.

And yet here in this gospel text from John, chapter 6, Jesus declares that when all is said and done, there are just two kinds of food in the world.

In verse 27 Jesus says, “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life…”

Did you catch that? Two food options—just two—take your pick: there’s the “food that perishes” and the “food that endures for eternal life.” What are you hungry for? What kind of grub can I rustle up for you?

At first glance the choice seems deceptively easy: who would ever choose the “food that perishes” if your other choice is the “food that endures for eternal life?” The choice is obvious, isn’t it?

But not so fast. Earlier in John 6, Jesus provided a whole boatload of “food that perishes.” Jesus multiplied a little boy’s lunch into a gigantic picnic that filled 5,000 growling stomachs--with twelve baskets of leftovers, to boot!

And every last morsel of that picnic, was (by Jesus’ own definition) “food that perishes”—that is, the stuff we think of as food, the sustenance we consume every 24 hours, just to keep body and soul together.

Don’t be too quick to write off this first kind of food, dear friends. We need some of it every day. People die when they’re perpetually short on the “food that perishes,” the carbs and fats and proteins that vitalize us and keep us on the move.

Jesus cares about the “food that perishes.” Jesus knows that all God’s children need such food, at regular intervals, or else we die. Jesus would have us care about this real food in a real world filled with real hunger! Just last week, youth from Trinity got up to their elbows in providing that sort of “food” down in New Orleans—12,000 youth and adults heading out on each oft here days, launched out into post-Katrina service projects among folks hungering for the “food that perishes.”

But even the finest cuisine, the tastiest banquet fare, the most sumptuous delicacies—it all ends up in those little Tupperware containers…tucked toward the back of the fridge…with green mold on it, after about a week. This is the short-shelf-life food that will not keep, will not last long enough to get us where we’re going…to the full, free, rich, eternal life God created us to live.

That’s why Jesus taught us to pray, “Give us today our daily bread…”

Jesus differentiates between “food that perishes” and “food that endures for eternal life,” never denying, though, that we need BOTH kinds of food.

For you see the “food that perishes” is necessary, absolutely necessary for this life…
….even though it is never sufficient for the full, rich, free eternal life that God created us for!

So Jesus whets our appetite for the “food that endures for eternal life.” That’s what’s so great about this sixth chapter of St. John’s gospel. Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell us the wondrous, eye-popping, ear-opening story of the Feeding of the 5000….

But only John’s gospel draws deeper into what the Feeding tells us, how the Feeding addresses our deeper hunger, our hunger to have that “Jesus-shaped hole” inside of us filled up!

Here’s the kicker: it’s as if the Feeding of the 5000 in John six is actually the appetizer—not the meal itself—but the hors d’ouvres that get our mouths watering for the Good Stuff, the Banquet that is yet to come…

….and here in today’s gospel lesson Jesus describes what that real Banquet is: the “food that endures for eternal life.” Loaves and fishes, carbs and proteins, take us only so far…get us through one more day….but Jesus offers something far richer, more hunger-satisfying, more thirst-quenching….and he doesn’t dangle it out there, just beyond our reach, either. No, John tells us that the “food that endures for eternal life” is the precisely the food that “the Son of Man will give you.”

And as this tantalizing promise unfolds before us we realize that this “food that endures for eternal life” is none other than Jesus himself. “I gave you loaves and fishes yesterday,” Jesus tells the crowd, “but today I’m serving up the Main Course: myself.”

And here, dear friends, we encounter the question, the crisis, the tipping point. Is anybody hungry for what Jesus most wants to give us, this “food that endures for eternal life?”

Our dilemma, our sin, is this: we’re almost always ready to settle for less! The immediate reaction of the crowd here in John chapter 6 reflects human nature down to its core. Jesus feeds 5000 folks, and they want Jesus to get into politics! “Let’s make him our king, so he can keep the good times rolling.”

And when Jesus catches wind of their earth-bound plan, he flees—heads for the hills! (John 6:15) He gets out of Dodge as fast as his feet will carry him!

Because while the “food that perishes” is necessary for life, it is never sufficient for the full, free, rich, eternal life we were created for….and THAT’s what Jesus aches to share with you and me and all people!

That’s what, as followers of Jesus, we have to offer our neighbors, near and far. Fill their bellies, look after their immediate needs, to be sure….but don’t forget to serve up the Good Stuff, the only “food” that will stick to their ribs and “carry” them forever! Give them carbs and proteins and vitamins and minerals….but, whatever you do, give them Jesus, too!

At this critical moment in our church’s life, as we take this “missional turn” in the 21st century church…is our golden opportunity to get this stuff straight, to never short-sell what God gives the world through you and me who bear Christ wherever we go.

You and I and everyone else on this old ball of mud are always ready to settle for something less—to settle for “empty calories,” junk food that leaves us hungry. If our tummies aren’t growling and our pantries are full and our 401Ks are growing again, all is well, we think….
…..even though Jesus aptly calls all of that good and necessary stuff the “food that perishes.”

Five seconds after your heart stops beating it all gets tossed into probate court and your heirs fight over the leftovers.

The “food that perishes” takes us only so far, it’s never sufficient for the whole journey God is taking us on.

And that’s why our most joyful task, our highest calling is to whet our appetites and tempt our neighbors with the savory aroma of the Good Stuff, the “food that endures for eternal life.” And so we name the ache inside of us, and God uses us to fill that emptiness with the only food that lasts, the food that is Jesus—his serving life, his sin-forgiving death, his death-defying resurrection.

So, where does that leave us? Where has God placed us in this aching, hungry world….filled with folks who all have a Jesus-shaped hole inside themselves?

In many respects you here at Trinity are right in the thick of it. You don’t need to pack your bags and head somewhere else in the world to be about God’s mission.

You can just walk out your doors—because the whole world has come to you. The world in all its multi-colored, variegated splendor has moved into Pelican Rapids. Whoever imagined that this quiet, lovely community would be welcoming new neighbors from all over the globe?

By bringing into your town so many immigrants, new friends and neighbors like the hundreds who showed up here for last evening’s “At the River” concert….by plopping down, right under your noses, this sea of humanity….God is pitching you a slow ball, right over home-plate, in the hope that you’ll knock that ball right out of the park!

And, thank God, you’re responding to this amazing missional opportunity, offering not only the “food that perishes” but serving up the “food that endures to eternal life,” serving up Jesus, the Sin-Bearer, Death-Defeater, Future-Opener…Jesus!

Your neighbors, old and new, are hungry. Fill their growling stomachs—oh yes—but that’s just the appetizer, the hors d’ouvres that prepare the way for the Good Stuff. Give them Jesus. Fill the Jesus-shaped hole in their souls with “the food that endures to eternal life.”

In the name of Jesus. Amen.

Reflections on the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies

When the ELCA Churchwide Assembly convenes in Minneapolis next month, voting members will deliberate on four steps that could lead to a change in the ELCA’s policy regarding the rostering of ministers who are in partnered gay or lesbian relationships. Current ELCA policy states: “Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.”[1]

The first of the four steps being proposed to the Churchwide Assembly asks the ELCA to “commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.” Although this step does not specifically speak of “blessing” gay/lesbian relationships, its adoption would move the ELCA toward official acceptance of homosexual behavior, marking a significant change in the policy and practice of our church. Doing so would also signal a departure from pertinent social statements of the predecessor church bodies that created the ELCA in 1988. Approving “step one” at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly would allow the voting members to proceed to steps 2-4 which, more directly, address the question of rostering ministers who are in partnered gay or lesbian relationships.

The question of homosexuality (and the sub-question re: rostering of partnered homosexuals) has been debated, almost continually, since the founding of the ELCA in 1988. When I served on the board of the former ELCA Division for Ministry (1995-2001), as I recall, the rostering of homosexual persons was the only matter we discussed at each of the twelve board meetings I attended. Our current deliberations must be understood against the backdrop of this long history—a history that mirrors the fevered debate over homosexuality in the broader American culture.

As a voting member of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, I will participate in the debate in Minneapolis and cast a vote. As bishop of the Northwestern Minnesota Synod I believe it is appropriate to share my thoughts at this time with the rostered leaders and laity of the synod. Although I’m not announcing how I plan to vote, I do intend to lay out the critical issues with which I am grappling. I welcome comments from those who read this essay.

In what follows I do not offer an exhaustive analysis of this issue. Rather, I want to describe the major arguments that currently inform my reflections. I will focus on our theology, our understanding of God’s mission, and our relationships with one another within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and with global and ecumenical partner churches.

THEOLOGY

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s Confession of Faith gives primacy of place to theological sources in approaching issues such as the church’s teaching and practice regarding homosexuality. The scriptures—as the fount of all theological reflection for Christian disciples—are described as “the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.”[2]

Biblical teaching and traditional Christian practice regarding human sexuality are bound up with our theology of marriage and family life. In creating us male and female, God has hard-wired gender “complementarity” into the very fabric of our being. We read Genesis 1-2 not just as a “long ago” origin stories. Rather we hear in these ancient texts a compelling account for how our lives continue to unfold within God’s gracious purposes. When he explained the meaning of the First Article of the Creed, Luther didn’t speculate about the origin of the human species. Rather he confessed that “God has created me and all that exists.”

The church’s historic disapproval of same-sex behavior (along with a host of other non-marital sexual behaviors) must be understood against the backdrop of its teaching and practice on marriage. Disapproval of homosexual acts is based on far more than a purported literalistic reading of “the seven biblical texts that refer directly to same-gender sexual activity.”[3] Christians’ historic unwillingness to accept homosexual behavior functions (alongside prohibitions of incest, bestiality, sex with minors, etc) as a fence around the divinely-blessed, biblically-privileged status of marriage between one man and one woman.[4]

Precisely at this point, however, we are challenged by 21st century worldviews and mindsets. The traditional understanding of marriage and family life “leaves out” so many of us, we are told. [5] What about single persons? What do we say to people who are physically unable to enter into marriage? And how about those who understand themselves to be attracted solely to persons of the same sex? If gays and lesbians cannot marry, is disciplined sexual abstinence their only option?

Our current stance toward the rostering of partnered gay and lesbian persons is often portrayed as being patently unfair. Moreover, it seems to negate the message of God’s love and acceptance of all human beings. Our present policy seems to contradict Christ’s outgoing love for the oppressed—our Lord’s gracious favor shown toward the marginalized.

One factor that contributes to these perceptions is that the distinction North American Lutherans have historically drawn between sexual orientation and sexual behavior no longer seems to “work” the way it once did. Our society increasingly resists such distinctions, at least with respect to homosexuality.[6] In this regard society has impacted the church more than the church has impacted society these last two decades.

Does this mean that the ELCA’s current stance actually is “anti-gospel,” though? I am not so persuaded. The ELCA’s present policy regarding the rostering of partnered homosexual persons has offered and continues to offer a way to accept people without approving same-sex behaviors that nowhere enjoy God’s blessing in Scripture or the mainstream Christian tradition.

Moreover, our present policies are consistent with a fuller, richer expression of the gospel than what is frequently offered by proponents of changing our ministry policies. The gospel is not best expressed as: “God accepts you just the way you are” –so therefore the church must fully accept gay and lesbian persons and their same-sex relationships. A fuller, richer expression of the gospel is that God graciously receives us “just as we are” (captive to the condition of sin that infects even our genes) in order to go to work on us, transforming us into new creatures in Jesus Christ (II Cor. 5:21).

God always moves toward us—starts with us just the way we are—but God never leaves us just the way we are. God accepts sinners (at least at the beginning of our transformation into new creatures in Christ), but God never accepts sin or “un-sins” sin. Rather, God defeats sin. God forgives sin, for Jesus’ sake

MISSION

Theology determines how we understand and serve God’s mission through the church. Present ELCA ministry policies forbid partnered gay/lesbian persons from serving in rostered ministries. Given the missional challenges and opportunities before us, should we keep saying “no” to these baptized disciples who sense God’s call to serve? Does it enhance our participation in God’s mission if we alienate ourselves in the ELCA—not only from gay/lesbian persons themselves, but also from the many family members and friends in the ELCA who love and support them?

Many argue that the ELCA’s current stance also contributes to the difficulty we have in capturing the hearts, minds and gifts of our younger generations of disciples (or would-be disciples). Furthermore, our present policy may hinder our ability to reach out to many of those whom Tex Sample has identified as the “cultural left” (as well as some in the “cultural middle”).[7] Folks who are persuaded by these arguments contend that, for missional reasons, our rostering policies must change.

But the missional questions are far more complex than this. Changing ELCA policy might enhance our participation in God’s mission in some arenas, but it will complicate it in many more arenas. Although changing our ministry policies might help us gain a hearing from some—perhaps many—younger folks, we should be cautious about assuming that all youth are of one mind on homosexuality.[8] Moreover, appealing to the opinions of young adults is like shooting at a moving target. Many of us who are middle-aged today held viewpoints passionately when we were in our teens and twenties that we have long since abandoned.

We must also ask ourselves questions that, in my experience, are rarely considered in our present discussions. For example, will finding ways to recognize, support and hold publicly accountable partnered gays and lesbians help the ELCA to

· …appeal more broadly and deeply to young married couples who are seeking a church that is manifestly committed to nurturing marriages and families? Today the ELCA is too-often perceived as a church that is overly-focused on the sexual lives of 3-7% of the population,[9] while doing relatively little to assist the roughly 95% of the population who will primarily live out their sexuality in the contexts of traditional marriages and families. Is it missionally wise to have allowed the ELCA to be positioned in such a fashion?

· …deepen our relationships with ecumenical and global partner churches in God’s mission? A tiny and declining minority of North American Christians belong to church bodies that have changed their policies to officially accept partnered gays/lesbians in rostered ministries.[10] Changing our rostering policies will likely strain our relationships with those larger churches to which the vast majority of Christians belong—the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Protestant evangelicals, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (with whom we still have cooperative relationships in federal chaplaincies, some social ministry organizations, Lutheran World Relief, etc.) Gazing beyond the North American context, we see among the robust, growing churches of the Global South little if any support for changing our policies regarding gay/lesbian clergy.[11] To what degree in Minneapolis will our voting members be invited to ponder the ecumenical and global implications of the proposed changes to our ministry policies?[12]

· …enhance our outreach among men in general and young adult men in particular? We know that men, especially young men, are less involved than women are in the life and mission of the ELCA. In recent years, more than one observer has commented upon a so-called “feminization of the church.”[13] Because men in America rather consistently view homosexuality more critically than women do, [14]changing our ministry policies with respect to homosexuals may well make it harder to incorporate mainstream men into the life and mission of the ELCA.

· …assist our church in its outreach among people of color and primary languages other than English? Since its inception, the ELCA has sought to make its membership more reflective of the growing ethnic and racial diversity in America. But we have struggled mightily to make headway in this regard. It’s striking—given how much we talk about becoming a multi-cultural church—that relatively little attention is paid to the “conservatism” in sexual matters prevalent among non-white racial/ethnic groups.[15]

RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE ELCA

The theological and missional issues I have already discussed come to even sharper focus when we consider our relationships within the ELCA—our members, rostered leaders, congregations, synods and the churchwide organization. Many of us are approaching the Churchwide Assembly with profoundly mixed feelings and conflicted desires for our church. There is, on the one hand, an aura of “inevitability” in our church right now—a sense that this year, finally, the Churchwide Assembly will open the door to changing our ministry policies. At the same time there is foreboding about what such changes could do the fabric of our unity in Christ, along with our ability to pursue God’s mission.

One thing is abundantly clear to me. Our decades-long discussions of same-sex orientation and behavior issues in the ELCA have distracted us from other missional challenges and opportunities. Endless debates over homosexuality have sapped our strength and left many of us bone weary. This corporate exhaustion might push us (even some traditionalists!) toward embracing a change in our rostering policies. “Let’s just do it and move on!”

Also, we come to Minneapolis aware that whole segments of the ELCA have already started to move (in actual practice) toward directions that are proposed. There are in various quarters tensions between our stated policies and the ways those policies are administered. This is not tenable over the long-haul. “Doing nothing” leaves us vulnerable to the charge that we are neither clear nor fair in how we deal with candidates for rostered ministry who understand themselves to be gay or lesbian. This state of confusion cannot continue.

But will the four-step proposal in the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies truly take us to a better place? When the document was released, my first impression of it was: “If we in the ELCA change our rostering policies, I can’t imagine a better process to follow.” I was especially heartened to see that an ELCA task force finally put the cart after the horse—dealing with “recognition” of same-sex partnerships before taking steps to roster persons engaged in such partnerships. I was also grateful for the accent on respect for the consciences of all—although I’ve become less certain that the novel term “bound conscience,” sheds much light on the subject.

In the months since the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies was released, my optimism about the proposed four-step process has waned. Several reasons have fed my skepticism:

· As even some traditionalists have noted,[16] the process seems disrespectful to candidates for ministry who are in partnered gay or lesbian relationships. Will we not see “tiers” within the clergy roster, reducing the sense we’ve had that, in principle, every rostered leader can serve in the ministry of Word and Sacrament anywhere in the ELCA?

· Practically speaking, I foresee the process leading bishops, synod staffs, candidacy committees and congregations into new ways of getting at cross-purposes with one another over particular candidates for ministry or nominees for specific Calls.

· The process initiated by the four steps hands over responsibility to the Church Council, in consultation with the Conference of Bishops and pertinent program units of the church to implement the actual revisions in our rostering policies. Do we have within the ELCA the level of trust in one another necessary to delegate to some in our ranks such detailed implementation of revised ministry policies? For that matter, can voting members in Minneapolis responsibly vote on the “four steps” without knowing more in advance about just how the revised policies will play out?

In this essay I've shared some of what I'm pondering as I prepare for the Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis. The deliberation before us will require prayerful, keen, well-grounded engagement with one another. May God grant us clarity of vision, breadth of perspective, biblically-grounded faithfulness, and evangelical graciousness for this critical assignment.

[1] Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers. Available at http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality/Current-Policy/Vision-and-Expectations-Ordained.aspx

[2] Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, section 2.03. Available at http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Secretary/ELCA-Governance/Constitutions-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-in-America.aspx


[3] Line 103 of Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies.

[4] Proponents of changing the ELCA’s ministry policies regarding homosexuals frequently point out the presence of varieties of sexual practices in the Bible—including polygamy. However, in a helpful overview of such questions Craig R. Koester observes, “Marriage practices did not remain static [in the Bible], but the tendency reflected in the biblical writings is to advocate greater restraint rather than greater latitude: the polygamy which was practiced by some of Israel’s ancestors eventually gave way to monogamy, with Jesus and Paul stressing that marriage consists of two people becoming one, each man with his own wife and each woman with her own husband (Matthew 19:5; I Cor. 7:2). Jesus took an uncomfortably rigorous stance on marriage and divorce, and ascribed new dignity to abstinence.” Source: “The Bible and Sexual Boundaries,” Lutheran Quarterly (Winter 1993): 384.

[5] It seems to me that “mainline” Protestant churches have let the “tail wag the dog” in matters sexual. Fearful of offending or “leaving out” certain individuals or sexual minorities, we have essentially surrendered our voice regarding traditional, mainstream sexual teaching and practice.

[6] Though not entirely analogous to homosexuality, society’s treatment of alcoholics may be apropos at this point. There are “constitutional” alcoholics—persons who are “oriented” toward abusing alcohol—who are accepted and loved as persons, even though their alcoholic behaviors are not tolerated.

[7] Tex Sample, “Indigenous Ministry in the Context of the United States,” an article first published in 1991 and available at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=159.

[8] I was struck by how willingly the small number of youths who were voting members at our 2009 synod assembly spoke to the assembly in the floor debates over sexuality issues. These youths were by no means “of one mind” on the morality of homosexual acts, too.

[9] Robert Epstein, “Do Gays Have a Choice? Science Offers a Clear and Surprising Answer to a Controversial Question,” in Scientific American Mind (Volume 20, Number 3): 68.

[10] To the best of my knowledge, among the ELCA’s full communion partners, only the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ accept partnered gay/lesbian clergy. Though there have been long and continuing debates about homosexual clergy in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the United Methodist Church (UMC), these church bodies have not officially changed their rostering policies. The Presbyterian Church has passed such actions in their general assemblies, but these revised ministry policies have yet to “pass muster” in ratification votes by local presbyteries--votes that are required under Presbyterian polity. I’m told that the primary reason why the United Methodist Church has not changed its rostering policies is the presence of a large contingent of “traditionalist” bishops, pastors and laity from the Global South who have voting privileges at the general conferences of the UMC.

[11] Case in point: the 2004 Bukoba Statement of the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania reiterates traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality in the strongest of terms. Available at http://www.elct.org/news/2004.05.001.html#3.2. Note: The membership of the ELCT roughly equals the membership of the ELCA.

[12] I still vividly remember the opportunity that was granted to the Rev. Ishmael Noko of the Lutheran World Federation to speak at length to the voting members of the 1999 Churchwide Assembly in Denver, regarding the positive ecumenical/global implications that would accompany passage of Called to Common Mission. Will Rev. Noko (or some other global church leader) be invited to address the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in like fashion, regarding the ministry report and recommendations?

[13] Most notably Leon Podles, The Church Impotent—The Feminization of Christianity, 1999: Spence Publishing Company.

[14]“Meta-analyses of the research literature on heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuality indicate that heterosexual men and women react differently to homosexuality. Heterosexual men generally manifest higher levels of sexual prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes toward homosexual persons) than do heterosexual women. This difference results mainly from heterosexual men's attitudes toward homosexual men, which are consistently more negative than both their attitudes toward lesbians and heterosexual women's attitudes toward either lesbians or gay men (Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1996).” Source: “Sex Differences in How Heterosexuals Think about Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Survey Context Effects,” by Gregory M. Herek, John P. Capitanio; The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 36, 1999.

[15] For example, recent Gallup Poll research reveals that “only 31% of black Democrats in America say homosexual relations are morally acceptable, roughly the same as the 30% of Republicans who agree, while very much different from the 61% of nonblack Democrats who say homosexual relations are morally acceptable.” Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/112807/Blacks-Conservative-Republicans-Some-Moral-Issues.aspx

[16] Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, “Task Force Proposes Second-Class Ordination for Gay Candidates,” available at http://www.lutheranforum.org/sexuality/task-force-proposes-second-class-ordination-for-gay-candidates/.