Where Did Jesus Stand at the ELCA Assembly?

by Nadia Bolz-Weber 08-28-2009

In John 6:56-69, Jesus is teaching in the synagogue, and when he’s done a bunch of his followers say, “This teaching is haaaard.” And Jesus is like, “Oh, I’m sorry, does this offend you?” and several of them left right there on the spot. He then asks, “Do you also want to leave?” and Peter replies “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

As many of you know, my denomination — the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — met in church-wide assembly last week, the highest governing body of the church, with several historic decisions to be made around this church’s stance on issues of human sexuality. In the end, we approved a social statement as well as policy changes that now allow congregations to bless and hold publicly accountable those in same-sex, lifelong, monogamous relationships, as well as to call GLBTQ pastors in such relationships to serve as their clergy.

The debate on the floor between those at the green microphones who support these steps and those at the red microphones who reject these steps was sometimes inspired and sometimes insipid. Those in support urged the church to be open and loving as Jesus had been. Those opposed urged the church to heed the Bible. Both sides were passionate and faithful, and I’m proud to say that throughout the debate the assembly paused every 20 minutes to pray together. I watched people say prayerful things, hurtful things, thoughtful things, and idiotic things on both sides of the aisle.

And then a young pastor got up to speak at the green microphone and the first thing he said, in a quivering voice, was “Anyone else frightened to speak? I’m shaking. Please pray for me.” And the man standing right next to him at the red microphone reached over and laid his hand on him and prayed while his brother of the opposing viewpoint spoke.

Then I knew Jesus was really in between the red and green microphones. Not in some sort of neutral Jesus-as-Switzerland sort of way, but in the you-must-lose-your-life-to-gain-it sort of way. Jesus is between the red and the green microphones, between the red and the blue states offering us life and salvation in the words of eternal life and in the sacrament of his own body and blood. Jesus right there between the liberals and conservatives speaking the word that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Jesus standing there saying forgive as you have been forgiven.

Part of me is with the disciples who say, “These teaching are difficult, who can accept them?” So when Jesus says, “Do you too want to leave?” I think the only reasonable answer is, well, yeah. I do. ‘Cause these teachings are haaaard and I’m very aware of how much these policy changes mean to this community I love, but I’m also aware of how painful these policy changes are to a minority in this denomination I love.

To be sure, there are places to go in the ELCA for triumphalism. But while celebrating a victory is understandable, these are not the words of eternal life.

To be sure, there are some places in the ELCA where you can hear the words of angry indignation and revolt. But while disappointment is understandable, these are not the words of eternal life.

There are words of eternal life, but they are not our words. So let us not go to ourselves because as deeply as we hold our beliefs about inclusion, or social justice, or as deeply as we hold our beliefs about social conservatism or personal morality, we do not have the words of eternal life. We have our beliefs, our convictions, our understandings of scripture, and, hear me clearly — these are not to be taken lightly or walked away from. But they are not the words of eternal life.

Jesus, the true Word of God standing between red and green, points us to life and life abundant. Not the empty satisfaction of being right because we are the majority or because we are the righteous minority, but counter-intuitively the words of eternal life tell us that we must die. We must die to self and live to Christ.

At the beginning and the end of these debates, Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson reminded us that

WE MEET ONE ANOTHER FINALLY, NOT IN OUR AGREEMENTS OR OUR DISAGREEMENTS, BUT AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS. WHERE GOD IS FAITHFUL, WHERE CHRIST IS PRESENT WITH US, AND WHERE, BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WE ARE ONE IN CHRIST.

So let’s again look to Christ and not ourselves, because in the end there are no winners and losers, there is just what there has always been, the good news of Jesus Christ, The Holy One of God. To whom else shall we go? He has the words of eternal life and offers all the inexplicable gift if his own self, body, blood, and word. And bids all come and eat.

Nadia Bolz-Weber is a Lutheran pastor living in Denver, Colorado, where she serves the emerging church, House for all Sinners and Saints. She blogs at www.sarcasticlutheran.com and is the author of Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television. This article is an edited adaptation of a recent sermon.

Categories: Ministry, Theology

cubfan19

Boyd maybe address some issues that Piper was wrong, but in the points he makes he does nor really help his side either. I do not necessarily agree with Piper, but here are some things to consider.
His point 1: Yes the minneapolis convention center was also hit, but that was the building that the actual assembly was being held in. I was there and the exact session that the tornado hit was the session when debate and voting was being done on the issue. So if Piper is right then there it would follow that the convention center would be hit (also it is right across the street from the church.)

Point 2: Very simply, Can God control the weather? If he can then it does not matter how natural it is.

Point 3: I think Boyd missed the point that the debate was actually over the view of scripture and not just sexuality, so if one side is truly breaking away from scripture that would be a serious offense. How to read scripture not particular views of sexuality. He also asks why other churches that neglect the poor are not hit by tornadoes, the problem is that this might be the case and Piper is talking about a specific incident, not every tornado.

Point 4: If God wanted to make things plain and clear then why didn't Jesus take the Devil's temptation on the mountain and set up his kingdom on earth by openly showing all his glory and power. This is just bad theology. Even though the Bible is based upon historical evidence and facts, it is ultimately a matter of faith. Also, if you want to know what happened to people who made incredible claims about what God was saying check the prophets of the OT. Again, this is not an endorsement of Piper, but Boyd's point is weak.

Point 6: Again, bad reading of the passage. The passage does not let off the hook the guilt of the 18, but says that the rest are just as guilty. Guilt is still maintained. Was it random? Probably. Important to note, though, is that no one was hurt at the convention. At least that was the announcement to those present.

So, though Piper might be wrong, Boyd didn't do much better.

Nadia's article was better than both Piper and Boyd.

arachne646

I think I will be praying for those I disagree with, to hear them better.

revmel

I'm sorry- I didn't mean to provoke, and I'm saddened, truly, that you needed to leave the ELCA.
However, I don't define marriage, (although I am one woman married to one man)
But the Bible does have lots of examples of marriage. Kings David and Solomon had hundred of wives and hundreds of mistresses. Levrite marriage was common, if your brother died, you married his wife, and added to the family. Paul thought you shouldn't even get married at all.
One form of "Biblical Marriage" simply doesn't exist. Check the texts.
That is all I am lifting up here- scripture.

ando

Okay, I guess you're the one to define marriage. How about two man and one
woman? Or two women and one man? How about leaving your wife to marry
another man? The ELCA did not approve gay marriage? What did they do?
What are they doing to support and uphold marriage between a man and a
woman? You make it sound that marriage between male and female is no big
deal. As if God just decided to make two sexes, not three or one, on a
whim.

The decision by the ELCA -- which I used to be part of -- is not surprising.

revmel

First of all, it must be clarified that the ELCA did not approve gay marriage. Our understanding of that has not changed.

What I am saying is that the mandate to be fruitful and multiply was given to Adam and Eve. God made many mandates to his people in Genesis, a book you implied we don't give enough import, and we lift up that mandate as the one we should follow.
What about God telling Abraham to kill his son? What about the Nephilim? The flood that killed most of the world?

There are countless texts in Genesis that tell us what we should do to follow God's will- the list above included in them.

Why do we take the Genesis 2 account and not the rest of Genesis? Why do we lift up Matthew 19 on marriage, and not the later verses on divorce? If we decide not all of it is a literal application for our lives... how can we navigate through scripture with a new perspective.

ando

Are you trying to say that it's not God's mandate that marriage is between a
man and a woman? I have a hard time trying to equate marriage with
"fratricide, rape, prostitution, and incest among others." I don't see the
logic.

revmel

Hmmm...
So, what if my husband and I cannot be fruitful and mulitply?
Are going against God's mandate?
What if we don't tend the earth, but rob it of resources?
I just think we need to be careful when we say we want to take Genesis more seriously... That book has some huge problems: fratricide, rape, prostitution, and incest among others... all as God's will?

toddh

Fantastic article! Thank you.

canucklehead

Your sense of Christian compassion is revealing more than you know.

BlueDeacon

That's not what Jesus meant. The immediate context was that hot water would be used for washing, cooking and other things while cold water would be used for drinking (especially in such a hot climate as the Middle East). Therefore, in using the term "lukewarm," he was saying that "You're useless."

BlueDeacon

I think the problem is that both sides completely miss what the Scripture really says concerning homosexuality, in large part because the church today is such an influence in Western culture. God there identifies homosexuality as part of the "world system" that His people are obliged to reject, because (and this is apparently also the case when ancient Israel was moving into the Promised Land) it was part-and-parcel of every culture around them. My sympathies lie with those who believe that homosexual conduct has no place in the Church; however, most of the time they end up taking out of context those passages referring to it.

FaithfulandTrue

Well, New Jersey is where all those gambling casinos are located (owned by that rich man who has been divorced several times - I can't think of his name). Virginia is where the settlers landed in 1607 and planted a cross.

Reverend Robertson has only been married one time and the casino man had had several wives (Trump - I just remembered his name). And God hates divorce. So maybe we should consider placing all of the divorced couples in one state on the East Coast. Kind of like when farmers put a lightning rod on top of their barns.

canucklehead

"Mean spirited conservatives..."

canucklehead

Thx Buckeye for the link. When I first heard of Piper's pipe-dream I was instantly reminded of Pat Robertson's claim from some years back that God had intervened and spared Virginia Beach from being pummelled by Hurricane Fairy or whatever its name was. To my knowledge, Bro Pat never did satisfactorily answer why God loved Virginians more than New Jerseyans or wherever it was that that hurricane ended up wreaking havoc.

lumens

"I can appreciate, from past dealings with you, your tendency to intensely focus on specifics. That is why you reach for the "seems to" when the answer is in the next verse."

I was explaining the metaphorical language employed in the passage. When I say it "seems to", I am referring to the fact that a number of scholars embrace this explanation, and not describing my own personal take.

The "context" of the passage argues for Schroeder's position, in my view. Revelations 3:7-13 discusses the virtue of perseverance. Within this context, it is reasonable to claim that a lukewarm Christian lacks endurance, and has settled for living the good life on Earth.

lumens

"I will be more succint in the future to accomodate you and those who think like you."

That would be a good idea.

"btw, did you mean to say "if you're going to be concise, be concise."?"

No. Concision is a characteristic of pith, not a synonym for the term.

Hannity created a dichotomy. Instead of A, we should do B. Allow me to craft an analagous exchange.

John: Wow, the pizza delivery guy got here in 20 minutes. He should win an award.

Eric: An award? He should be cited for running those red lights.

John: We are all required to stop at red lights.

See the problem?

PASTOR JEFF

Thank you for acknowledging bad exegesis. Context can improve exegesis immensely, which is why I "slapped a whole chapter" on my assertion. I can appreciate, from past dealings with you, your tendency to intensely focus on specifics. That is why you reach for the "seems to" when the answer is in the next verse.

You may want to proceed with caution when presuming to judge the Lutherans, on the off chance that they may turn out to be "another Man's wife". Husbands and fiancee's can get kind of up in arms about that sort of thing.

PASTOR JEFF

Thanks for giving the opportunity to extend the model of Christ's surrender to you. I will be more succint in the future to accomodate you and those who think like you. btw, did you mean to say "if you're going to be concise, be concise."?

My understanding was that Hannity was urging the confrontation of sin as he sees it exhibited in homosexual persons. I was simply reminding him that the Bible encourages us to call all to repentance rather than singling out any one group. Hannity can respond and correct me if I'm wrong, unless of course you speak on his behalf.

lumens

If you are going to accuse someone of poor exegesis, it is helpful to go further than simply slapping a chapter on your assertion.

The verse (Rev 3:16) seems to refer to the provision of medicine or refreshment. Laodicea has provided neither, and was inert in it's faith, living high on the hog.

So, while it is imprecise to say this is a call for us to either be gung ho for Christ or reject him completely, the call seems relevant in this context. The Lutheran church has become more of a social club, not unlike many mainline denominations.

As a byproduct, instead of spiritually refreshing its congregations and surrounding communities, it is rejecting God's teachings in favor of some nebulous concept of tolerance. It is neither hot nor cold.

lumens

"I think the post was about the journey--not about whether any particular party has arrived at the correct ethical conclusions along the way."

Into The Wild is a film (based on a book) about a journey. Once the journey is seen through the lens of its conclusion, the nature of the journey itself changes.