The assembly met for non-legislative discussion beginning at 10:30 a.m. Voting members lined up at several microphones and quickly began calling for the document’s approval or defeat.
Robert Benne of the Virginia Synod said he opposes the document not because of its possible consequences but because its perspective is intrinsically wrong. “The word of God should not be put up for a vote,” he said.
Y. Chiu, a physician from the Northeastern Ohio Area Synod, called himself a “reformed homophobic.” He said he changed his beliefs after considering an earlier church teaching in 1993. “Change is good,” he said. “Being a rebel is not bad.”
Pastor Phillip Nielsen of the Nebraska Synod, a conservative, said the document oversimplifies the sexuality debate by neglecting the perspectives of bisexual and transgender persons. It does not present the nuanced arguments of either primary side, he said, but merely presents summaries of opinions.
Did you catch the first two basic premises of the taskforce that put together this 10.000 word report on sexuality that was several years in the amking? They are so revealing and epitomize the dilemma of all the so-called “mainline” denominations.
Basic premise #1. [i]”There is no longer a consensus on CORE Christian beliefs, much less on ethics.”[/i] (I added the caps for emphasis). How utterly sad, but true. This is an open admission of the obvious, that when differing [b]CORE[/b] beliefs or values are in conflict, the doctrinal foundation of the Church has been gravely compromised. Indeed, the taskforce implicitly assumes these differences in core beliefs are unresolvable. And I’d agree, I think the gap between them is unbridgeable, apart from conversion from one side to the other. Two mutually exclusive worldviews are clashing.
Which leads to the all important second point.
Basic premise #2. [i]”The church’s mission takes higher priority than resolving differences about sexualtiy. ‘Culture Wars rarely illuminate the gospel.'”[/i] Well, that’s the normal, natural, predictable reaction of institutionalists to the problem of intractable conflict. It’s perfectly understandable: at all costs, let’s preserve the institution, and let time sort it out and settle the theological quarrel. But it’s theologically and spiritually deadly.
In essence, premise #2 boils down to the famous or infamous principle that TEC’s +Peter Lee highlighted as his governing assumption in this vexed, prolonged crisis, [i]”If you have to choose between heresy and schism, choose heresy.”[/i] It seems so reasonable, doesn’t it? And not just to broad churchmen like Bishop Lee.
But the well-intentioned attempt to ignore the bitter fruit of the ongoing clonflict over CORE beliefs and values is disastrous, precisely because it’s fundamental, essential beliefs we’re talking about. And core beliefs and values just aren’t negotiable.
That second premise of the taskforce is catastrophic. For as I keep harping on here at T19 and SF, [b]”Doctrine trumps polity, not vice versa.”[/b] It’s one thing for TEC to embrace, as it has, the opposite principle, i.e., that maintiaining insitutional unity takes precedence over maintaining theological unity. After all, we Anglicans have always taken refuge in theological ambiguity and vagueness, while insisting on uniformity in church order.
But what’s surprising is for Lutherans to do the same. I mean if you can’t count on Lutherans to value doctrine above all else, who can you trust??
To me, that fateful capitulation to the normal pressures of institutionalism (preserve the institution at all costs) reflected in the taskforce’s basic premise #2 is the telltale sign of how far the ELCA has fallen. The verbose, cautiously progressive sexuality report isn’t just unbiblical. It’s incredibly unLutheran.
[i]”How are the mighty fallen!”[/i]
David Handy+