One Pastor's Response

Dear Bishop Hanson-

 

Thank you for a gracious and thoughtful letter on the upcoming Churchwide Assembly.  Although I deeply respect your leadership, issue must be taken with the description of unity.  Yes, we are truly "one in Christ."  That is the good news.  However, if the Assembly moves forward with the recommendations from the Task Force on Sexuality, we will lose functional unity.  How and where will this be lost? 

 

It will be lost missionally as our multicultural mission partners at home and around the world reiterate their stance that homosexuality is anathema in their culture.  This will, most likely, include the African, Hispanic, and Asian churches both within and beyond Lutheran World Federation.

 

This unity will be lost ecumenically as the Churches of Rome, Canterbury, and Geneva will surely seek distance from the ELCA as we take a step that to those traditions is anathema.   

 

This unity will be lost biblically as some of us continue to cling to the belief that scripture is the source, norm, and final authority for our life together.

 

This unity will be lost numerically as ELCA congregations that disagree with the statement decide they can no longer remain with a denomination that appears to have traded exegesis for isogesis.

 

This unity will be lost financially both in the loss of those who are, even now, making plans to leave and as others, who decide to remain, cut their benevolence commitments to our Churchwide partners.

 

And so the list goes on…  Perhaps most tragically for this second generation Lutheran pastor who has sought to support all expressions of the church from an early age, it will mean the loss of a deep sense of connection, with only an even deeper sense of abandonment to stand in its stead.

 

Again, thank you for a gracious and thoughtful letter on the issue at hand, however, the unity of the sacramental table will never excuse trading our historical biblical and confessional commitments to further entrench ourselves as the ecclesiastical arm of the most liberal political stances in the land.  During this time of tumult, my prayers are joined with countless others for the unity of our denomination and you, our presiding bishop.  May God be with all who will gather in assembly this August.

 

Your servant in Christ,

John LaMunyon, Lead Pastor
Sammamish Hills Lutheran Church
22818 SE 8th Street

Phone  425.392.7799, ext. 13

Fax      425.392.7897

Email   prjohn@shlc.org

Web     www.shlc.org

 

Sammamish Hills is a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and serves as an Anchor Church  for the 3 Dimensional Ministries Network (www.3dministries.com). Through these strategic mission partnerships we seek to serve Christ throughout the world.

 

Pastoral Letter from Bishop Hanson

Dear colleagues in ministry,

As we approach the churchwide assembly, I am thankful for the thoughtful and respectful discussion at synod assemblies of the proposed social statement on human sexuality and the ministry policy recommendations. I am mindful, however, that we remain a church body that is not of one mind about these decisions, and that these continuing differences have raised concerns among some about whether we are headed toward a church-dividing decision.

I am writing to express my shared, heartfelt commitment to the church’s unity, and, even more, my deep confidence that this unity will not be lost. For this reason please join me in reflecting on the unity of Christ’s church that is the foundation both for our life together in the ELCA and our relationships with other Christians throughout the world.

The unity of Christ’s church is God’s daily work through the Holy Spirit calling, gathering, enlightening and sanctifying us with the gospel. Sometimes, when I hear concerns about division in the ELCA, I worry that they express a fear that unity depends on the actions of church leaders or assemblies. Our unity, however, comes to us because God gives it freely and undeservedly in Jesus Christ. Although everyone in leadership shares responsibility for stewarding our unity in Christ, it will not be won or lost at the churchwide assembly in a plenary session vote. Rather, it will be received as a gracious gift from God when the assembly is gathered each noon by the Word and Sacrament through which God gives us unity, making us one in Jesus Christ.
We hold in common this confession that God makes us one in Jesus Christ, but it is not making this confession that makes us one. Rather, because God unites us to Jesus Christ in Baptism we are also united to each other in one body that transcends any other difference. Paul states this clearly. “For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”.

A marvelous insight into this unity was made recently during a Bible study as members of the (LWF) Executive Committee took turns reading Paul’s familiar words about the body of Christ in their own languages. The differences were fascinating. Several read, “all the members of the body, though many, are one body”. Others read, “all the members of the body, being many, are one body.” Our Bible study leader suggested that “though many” implies that our “many-ness” (that is, our diversity or differences) is a problem that compromises the unity of the body of Christ. But, “being many” within the Body of Christ implies that diversity is unity’s strength, not its weakness. The witness of Scripture is that both unity and diversity are God’s gifts. There is one Spirit, one Baptism, one faith, one Lord of us all, but a variety of gifts and callings are given for the sake of the gospel and the common good.

God’s gift of unity in Christ informs our life and witness together in the community of Christ’s church. Rather than approach the assembly apprehensively, I invite you to see it as an opportunity for faith-filled witness to the larger human family that struggles with division and yearns for healing and wholeness that is real and true. We live in a polarized culture that equates unity with uniformity and sees differences as a reason for division. This moment, and our witness as a church body in the midst of it, deserves something better from us. We have the opportunity to offer the witness of our unity in Christ─diverse, filled with different-ness and differences, broken in sin, and yet united and whole in Christ. This moment deserves the witness of a community that finds and trusts its unity in Christ alone, engages one another with respect, and seeks a communal discernment of the Spirit’s leading.

In recent weeks I have been re-reading Bonhoeffer’s Life Together where he writes, “God already has laid the only foundation of our community, because God has united us in one body with other Christians in Jesus Christ long before we entered into common life with them.” He says that other Christians who may be different and yet live by God’s call, forgiveness, and promise are a gift and a reason to give thanks. He continues with this remarkable insight about all of us and the unifying power of Christ’s forgiveness:

Even when sin and misunderstanding burden the common life, is not the one who sins still a person with whom I too stand under the Word of Christ? Will not another Christian’s sin be an occasion for me ever anew to give thanks that both of us may live in the forgiving love of God in Jesus Christ? Therefore, will not the very moment of great disillusionment with my brother or sister be incomparably wholesome for me because it so thoroughly teaches me that both of us can never live by our own words and deeds, but only by that one Word and deed that really binds us together, the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ? (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 5, pp. 36-37.)

Some may question why I am writing and wonder if this letter is advocating for a particular position on the questions before the churchwide assembly. It is not. Rather, it is an honest expression of my conviction that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s mission for the life of the world, and the members of this church deserve this witness from us: In Christ we are members of one body serving God’s mission for the life of the world.
As we approach the Assembly, I invite you to join me in confident hope, grounded in Christ, where we meet one another not in our agreements or disagreements, but at the foot of the cross. We meet as we hear the Word, confess our faith, receive Christ’s presence in bread and wine, sing our praises to God, make our offerings, and then go in peace, to share the Good News, remember the poor and serve the Lord.
God is faithful. Christ is with us. By the power of the Spirit we are one in him. “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

In God’s grace,

Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

God and Science Don't Mix...

... is the title of an editorial in this morning's edition of the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss. Like so many scientists I know, he claims to be non-religious. However, this claim belies his ignorance of religion for Dr. Krauss believes in reason. The principal doctrine of his faith is, as he states it, that "in human affairs -- as well as in the rest of the physical world -- reason is the better guide." Dr. Krauss surely (and correctly) worships reason when he elevates it above superstition. Dr. Krauss is, by every definition, a religious man with a deep and abiding faith in the ability of human reason to guide mankind.

Mr. Krauss is also a deeply confused human being. Reason requires values. When one contemplates whether to give to the poor or succor the sick, reason will tell you, perhaps, its cost and its consequence. Reason will not, however, tell you whether its good or moral. Likewise, when reflecting on whether to execute a mass murderer, reason is of no help. Christopher Hitchens is correct to point out that great evil has been committed by religious men. But, on what basis does Mr. Hitchens define evil? What experiment would Mr. Krauss suggest that would empirically prove that genocide is an inherently evil act?

The value of religion, when expressed as faith in a transcendent, higher authority, is not in its ability to explain the boiling point of water. Its worth is in the establishment of values around which science can help to order our lives. At the end of the day, science and religion are both critical for a world ordered to the higher values of right, good, and justice. Science, untethered to the transcendent values of a revealed faith can not contemplate wisdom, and religion without science is superstition.

Toward a Doxological Ethics of Sexuality

Pastor Amy C. Schifrin has written an article that, at least in my survey of the arguments for and against, the morality of homosexual practice, is both original and profound. More importantly, by focusing on Doxology, her critique of the ELCA Social Statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" puts the triune God at the center of her concerns. Here are just a few excerpts from her article:

 

In this text, Rev. Schifrin correctly calls the documents authors on their disingenuousness.

The framing of the question is a thin veneer for its theological underpinnings, for within its introductory statement command is turned to invitation, and obedience into pretense. In a few short moves love will become tolerance, sincerity will replace truth, and the bound conscience will no longer be bound to Holy Scripture...

Later in her article, she asks...

People may claim in all sincerity to be acting in good conscience, but if their conscience is misinformed, can it be good in the sense that what is good is also what is true?

 

The elevated value of 'tolerance' that accompanies the ELCA documents with regard to the bound conscience is an attempt to silence what has been passed on as the deposit of faith. Rather, it is the apostolic witness that should be privileged. In saying that we must respect all the voices, the solas of the faith are reduced to one voice among many.

Now, here is where Rev. Schifrin really shines.

The Holy Scriptures have no word of blessing for acts of homoeroticism — regardless of relational contexts, and the church's attempt to sacralize such pairings would work against the health of the neighbor now and for generations to come. Lex supplicandi legem stauat credendi! Such 'ecclesiastical' rites would work to change the beliefs all those who participate in them.

In addition to how we live our lives to God's glory, our liturgies, confessions, and other rites have consequences.

 

 

 

 

The Murder of Dr. Tiller -- Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?

Upon reflection I'm not sure that the answer to this age old aphorism, an emphatic NO, is the truth. Robert P. George, a scholar and devout Catholic par excellence, believes the answer to be no. Here's what he had to say in National Review:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing.  The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands.  No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him.  We are a nation of laws.  Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence.  Rightly or wrongly, George Tiller was acquitted by a jury of his peers.  "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished.  By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion.  Every human life is precious.  George Tiller's life was precious.  We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life.  Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

At the same time, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield writes

This debate needs to be framed as being about nothing less than democracy in America. When zealots act as they did this week in Kansas, they are making war on America, upon the constitution and the rule of law...The one thing we must share, is a commitment to keeping abortion from being the cutting edge of a crusade which trades our shared democracy for some people's theocracy.

These two comments are of a broad consensus of religious people and institutions that have come together to condemn the killing of Dr. Tiller. Implicit both in the comments posted above and the uniform condemnation of Dr. Tiller is the idea that the results of Tiller's murder are a not a net positive good for humanity. I disagree. Consider the following argument:

1. Everyone rightly condemned the murder and the murderer. Moreover, the murderer was captured. He will be tried. He will be punished. All in accordance with American values and practice. Democracy and the rule of law, contrary to the alarms and hand-wringing of Robert George and Rabbi Hirschfield, are safe. The murder of Dr. Tiller in no way puts American values at risk. Period.
2. A man who practiced what is no less than fetal infanticide is no longer with us. I do not mourn his death but I do condemn his murder. In the end, however, unborn children are objectively safer with Dr. Tiller dead than with him alive and practicing.

Do the ends justify the means? Phrased more explicitly, does the pursuit of a moral end justify the use of immoral means? In some cases the answer must be yes -- even the Biblical narratives show that lies may be told when serving a higher moral objective. Moreover, we all recognize that outcomes that are beneficial for mankind can emerge from evil. I argue that whether the outcome is a net positive for society ought to be the focus of the conversation. As I see things today, the competition among pro-lifers is to see who can condemn the murderer the loudest.

 

The ELCA and the Murder of Dr. Tiller

Just a follow up to my email concerning the ELCA and Dr. Tiller. In my original post, I wondered whether Dr. Tiller's Pastor and his congregational brothers and sisters had taken any steps to help him come to repentence. The cynic in me suggested that the answer was probably no since the ELCA, of which Dr. Tiller's church was a member, supports abortion-on-demand.

 

Interestingly, I just ran across a  letter to the editor in which three Missouri Synod Pastors, Jody R.Walter, David Emmons, and Mark Schoen show that they take their responsibility for the souls of its congregants seriously. Here's the second paragraph of their letter.

Dr. Tiller was an infamous abortionist, who was one of the very few in the country who would perform late-term abortions. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is strongly pro-life, and condemns the practice of abortion. Dr. Tiller, a former member of a Missouri Synod congregation, was excommunicated by that congregation for his abortion practice. (The congregation he was currently attending is part of another Lutheran body.) We stand by that action. Our sister congregation acted properly in disciplining Dr. Tiller. Such action is always intended to lead a person to see their sins and come to repentance. Excommunication is never intended to bring that person harm.

In Christ

The ELCA and Dr. Tiller

George Tiller, a physician who routinely performed partial birth abortions was murdered this week while he attended church - a church of the ELCA. Tiller, a lifelong and by all accounts a faithful Lutheran, did not understand the manifest evil of his specialty. Clearly, his church failed him. His pulpit failed him. His congregation failed him. Dr. Tiller continued to perform partial birth abortions with little or no moral consequence.

 

Let's now remind ourselves of the formal teaching of the ELCA on abortion. Perhaps then we can understand why Dr. Tiller was never admonished.

 

On page 1 of Section 1C, the ELCA's Social Teaching Statement on Abortion (SSOA) claims that "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born. Nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy.".

 

To me, this is quite likely the most unconscionable, callous, careless, and irresponsible statement in the entire SSOA. By what authority does the ELCA make this claim? Indeed, this assertion is more than unsupported! It is at odds with revealed Biblical truth that has withstood the test of over three-thousand years of theological reflection?

 

In a document that cloaks itself in the teaching authority of the Church, one would expect a serious attempt to use language in a truthful and meaningful way. Unfortunately, its authors seem deliberately to couch their words ways designed to blur any moral distinction between 'ending a pregnancy' and 'killing an unborn child'. In the section on Convictions of our Faith, the SSOA uses terms such as "human beings", "human life", "personal human life", "created life", and so forth. However, in the section entitled Ending a Pregnancy, the authors use phrases like "ending a pregnancy" or "terminating a pregnancy" -- terms that disguise the truth of the matter. And the truth is that a woman is not pregnant with a pregnancy; she is pregnant with a child. To terminate a pregnancy prior to birth is to end the life of an unborn child. This, like so many of the ELCA's social statements are illustrative of argument by euphemism and obfuscation.

 

Moral incoherence is everywhere in this document. On page 2 note the following statement: "We mourn the loss of life God has created." The authors imply that the deaths of millions of unborn children can not be helped. They are like casualties of war, storm, or plague. Two points need to be noted: First, if the ELCA truly mourns the deaths of aborted children then they should not approve of, or endorse, the ending of those tiny lives. Second, we are a Church that has magnificent liturgies designed to celebrate the lives of those who have been taken up into the arms of our Lord and Savior. We celebrate the passing of all persons, sinners and saints, because we know that there but for the grace of God go we. When was the last time the ELCA held a formal, public mourning for these poor children?

 

On page 3 the SSOA approves of aborting an unborn child when "Fetal abnormality will result in severe suffering and the very early death of an infant." In other words, the ELCA teaches that the way to correct certain kinds of suffering is to prematurely kill the sufferer or, if the patient is doomed to an early death killing the patient is a morally righteous act. Is this what they really mean?

 

Finally, ideas have consequences. Citing this document as its moral authority, the ELCA Board of Pensions approved abortion as a reimbursable medical expense. The idea that the church "ought not try to determine what is morally responsible but leave it up to the conscience of the individual" was ratified and approved in 1997. Subsequently, the ELCA Board of Pensions approved of abortion for the purpose of sex selection. Ideas have consequences.

 

To love and honor human life means that the intentional taking of human life through abortion is never a moral option for a Christian (1). To respect and honor a woman is to counsel her with the Biblical truth that has stood the test of centuries. Love is to help and counsel her so that she will trust in the Lord of Life and will not need to turn to the death of her unborn child as the solution to a problem. Love is to protect her from the terrible consequences of judgment, guilt, and shame that will follow her no matter what her decision. Lastly, love is to defend and welcome that child into God's community of believers.

 

Footnote: Ectopic pregnancies can and do result in the death of the mother (and her baby). Therefore, abortion in these cases is not only a medical necessity but a moral obligation as well.