Goodsoil drafts memorials for 2008 synod assemblies
Dear Supporter of Full Inclusion:
The church is in the midst of a time of thoughtful and prayerful discernment about issues relating to human sexuality. A crucial part of the process of discernment entails the synods in assembly to communicate their views about these issues. The Goodsoil Legislative Team has drafted four memorials addressing the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. These memorials concern rostered ministry, blessing services, and violence and discrimination perpetrated on account of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
We encourage those interested in receiving copies of these memorials to contact the Team at legislation@goodsoil.org. We will then send you copies, along with a few notes and instructions.
Please note that in March 2009, the Church Council will make its final decisions about what sexuality recommendations it will present to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis. This March 2009 date comes well before the beginning of the 2009 synod assembly season. Therefore, it is very important that synods wishing to communicate their views do so during the 2008 synod assembly season, rather than wait for 2009. See www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/timeline/ for the full timeline of key points in the process.
We ask that you consider these memorials to determine if one or more may be appropriate for introduction in your own synod. If so, we urge you to submit them for consideration at your 2008 synod assembly.
Grace and peace,
The Goodsoil Legislative Team
Friday, April 25, 2008
Frisk them bishops!
Gay Bishop Plans His Civil Union Rite
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
April 25, 2008
Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal prelate whose consecration led conservatives to split from the church, said in an interview on Thursday that he and his partner of 20 years were planning a civil union ceremony to be held in his home church in the diocese of New Hampshire in June.
Bishop Robinson said that by scheduling the ceremony for June, he did not intend to further inflame conservatives just before the Anglican Communion gathers in August in Cambridge, England, for the Lambeth Conference, which happens only once every 10 years.He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003.
NY Times story here.
Wonder which one of the conservative bishops Robinson figures to be the assassin? Or is it that gun-toting British population he fears. Or is it as anyone in their right mind fear, that he is being provocative?
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
April 25, 2008
Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal prelate whose consecration led conservatives to split from the church, said in an interview on Thursday that he and his partner of 20 years were planning a civil union ceremony to be held in his home church in the diocese of New Hampshire in June.
Bishop Robinson said that by scheduling the ceremony for June, he did not intend to further inflame conservatives just before the Anglican Communion gathers in August in Cambridge, England, for the Lambeth Conference, which happens only once every 10 years.He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003.
NY Times story here.
Wonder which one of the conservative bishops Robinson figures to be the assassin? Or is it that gun-toting British population he fears. Or is it as anyone in their right mind fear, that he is being provocative?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Peacemaker of the Year Award Goes to....
Katharine Schori! Yes, that's right! Hey, kids! Cap'n Bill here! Ready for some more cartoons? Today we turn to the funnies in the Palm Beach Daily News. Here look at the pictures. See the woman dressed like a pope? She's got a lot of very, very funny things to say. Read along with me kids!
"Schori defines herself as a peacemaker." (That's not what the inhibited bishops or congregations having to raise defense funds to pay lawyers are saying) Here's another real funny joke kids:
"The reality is there is a small segment of the Episcopal Church that is very upset about issues of sexuality," Jefferts Schori said. "But it's small. It's very noisy." (Hardey-har-har!)
"My sense is the vast majority in the middle of the spectrum in the Episcopal Church may or may not agree with the decisions of the general convention about issues of human sexuality, but they see other things are far more important to their identity as Episcopalians, to their mission in ministry as Episcopalians in the world. And they are going to live with it and keep moving."
That's right. Keep moving, nothing to see here! Ha hah!
For most members of the church, there are far more pressing issues, Jefferts Schori said.
OK! This is enough funny stuff! Can't take it. Please, stop! Seriously, if you want to know what is really going on and just how much a peacemaker Schori is go here.
"Schori defines herself as a peacemaker." (That's not what the inhibited bishops or congregations having to raise defense funds to pay lawyers are saying) Here's another real funny joke kids:
"The reality is there is a small segment of the Episcopal Church that is very upset about issues of sexuality," Jefferts Schori said. "But it's small. It's very noisy." (Hardey-har-har!)
"My sense is the vast majority in the middle of the spectrum in the Episcopal Church may or may not agree with the decisions of the general convention about issues of human sexuality, but they see other things are far more important to their identity as Episcopalians, to their mission in ministry as Episcopalians in the world. And they are going to live with it and keep moving."
That's right. Keep moving, nothing to see here! Ha hah!
For most members of the church, there are far more pressing issues, Jefferts Schori said.
OK! This is enough funny stuff! Can't take it. Please, stop! Seriously, if you want to know what is really going on and just how much a peacemaker Schori is go here.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Benne: A Sexual Ethic for Teletubbies
Shrimp here. Bob Benne's critique of the ELCA's draft sexuality statement was posted Monday at First Things: On the Square. When Benne writes, Shrimp reads. So should you and a whole lot more ELCA leaders. Shrimp out.
In mid-March, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Task Force on Sexuality released a draft of what is supposed to become a Social Statement—a basis for internal church policy and a platform for advocacy in society. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort have been put into an unending series of studies that have wrestled with the vexing problems of assessing the morality of homosexual relations, and from that assessment making further judgments about the blessing of gay unions and the rostering of homosexual clergy who are in committed partnerships. The basic theological/ethical challenge to assess homosexual conduct has never been addressed adequately in any preceding document. This draft Social Statement is no different in spite of expectations: It simply says that the church is divided on that issue. The kind of theological/ethical argument in this current document, however, is precisely the kind that will set the stage for a revision of Lutheran teaching on sexual ethics in the future. Such a revision would mean that the ELCA is no longer a church following in the footsteps of the Lutheran Reformation.
One of the noticeably odd features of the new draft is its absence of “males and females,” “women and men,” “husbands and wives,” “boys and girls,” and “mothers and fathers.” Instead, one reads of “couples,” “partners,” “engendered persons,” “parents,” and “children.” The subjects of the statement seem to have no distinct features, a bit like the amorphous Teletubbies of children’s television. This reluctance to affirm definite forms extends to the statement’s posture toward marriage and the family, commandments and law, guiding principles, and especially toward rules. In fact, this aversion to specific forms seems to be the fatal flaw of the document, leading to a vagueness and fluidity that undermines its capacity for genuine guidance in the church.
This formlessness appears immediately in the statement’s theological and ethical foundations. The law, though affirmed, remains a ghostly, abstract, and empty category. No commandments are mentioned. No covenantal structures—such as God’s gift of marriage to Adam and Eve—are affirmed. Indeed, there is no explication of male and female together being created in the image of God. Rather, the statement tries to derive its sexual ethic from the incarnation of Jesus and the justification his work has wrought. One of most astounding statements in the document asserts that ‘a Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that guide it’ (emphasis mine).
Certainly Jesus makes relevant statements about sexual ethics, but these have little to do with incarnation or justification. He reaffirms the creation account of woman and man being created in the image of God; he upholds marriage and offers very strict conditions for divorce. He condemns all sorts of sexual sins—adultery, fornication, lust, etc. But all these are built on the law of God he inherited from Jewish tradition, which gives the basic form and content to the sexual ethics he teaches and sometimes sharpens.
This effort to derive sexual ethics from incarnation and justification is a very un-Lutheran way of making an ethical argument. Luther argued that marriage is located in the order of creation and should be guided by natural law, best summarized in the Ten Commandments. Given that, he thought marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the state for the common good of society. He criticized precisely the Roman Catholic tradition that kept marriage completely under ecclesial authority (governed exclusively by canon law) and that located it in the order of redemption (marriage as a sacrament imparts saving grace). Rather, Luther proposed that marriage is first of all a social estate open to all, non-Christian and Christians alike. (See John Witte’s elaboration of the Lutheran teaching on marriage in his From Sacrament to Contract.)
While it is true that God’s justifying work in Christ enables us to take up our calling in marriage, which can then be made into a Holy Estate in the church’s blessing, the form and content of marriage are given by the structure and guidance of the law. The form is very specific—a life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman oriented toward loving communion and procreation. It provides the “place of responsibility” where our vocation is lived out. No formlessness there.
The statement clearly de-centers marriage as the touchstone around which Christian sexual ethics are elaborated. It takes up marriage as a topic only near the end of the document. It is even equivocal about the God-ordained status of marriage. It affirms that “Marriage is a structure of mutual promises between a man and woman blessed by God,” yet later suggests that “marriage” (quotation marks in the original document) is accorded legitimacy merely by its “historic origin.” It tepidly allows that this church “does not wish to alter this understanding” but then hurries on to dilute its affirmation by observing that some states already use “marriage” to refer to same-gender unions.
Likewise, the statement remains resolutely formless when it takes up family life. It grudgingly agrees that the nuclear family fosters the development of trust in children and youth, but immediately notes that it has not always done so effectively. Later it opts for a functional definition of the family and suggests that many arrangements can get the tasks done, not just the “conventional one.” Its pastoral compassion for many in “broken” families overcomes the possibility of making a normative statement about the form of the family.
But the biblical and Christian moral traditions are not so reluctant. A child always has a mother and father: Jesus has Joseph and Mary, Cain and Abel have Adam and Eve. Though there may be extended and even “tribal” families, the Bible always depicts a child having a mother and a father. Great care is taken to affirm and nurture this triad. A Commandment is devoted to it. It is biblically and traditionally normative, and no amount of appropriate pastoral accommodation to the fracturing or confusion of the modern family will change that.
The writers of the statement also make a strange move when they decide to use “trust” as the central ethical principle for human relations in marriage and family life, while avoiding the use of “love” as a principle. Indeed, there is little reflection on the meaning and forms of love, yet another example of the aversion to specific forms.
Trust and love are two different things. The former is a more passive quality in which one person allows his or her being to be dependent on the trustworthiness of another. Love is a more active principle that moves outward toward the other. There are distinct forms of love—libido, eros, philia, agape—that are expressed in different kinds of relationships. Some forms of love are inappropriate in some kinds of relationship. Libidinous love ought not be expressed toward children or those outside the marital bond. Chastity is the Christian virtue that leads to self-control in these matters. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, makes unconditional commitments and heals and restores broken relationships. Sexual love—a lively mixture of libidinous and erotic love—is to be expressed fully only in marriage and is appropriate to form. The Bible and the Christian tradition clearly prohibit sexual love to be expressed between siblings, parent and children (incest), between different kinds of species (bestiality), and between those of the same sex (homosexuality.)
These sorts of distinctions are deeply embedded in the biblical material as well as in the Christian moral tradition held by nearly all Christians throughout the ages. Sadly, the Social Statement does not draw upon that tradition to make such distinctions. There is, after all, more in Christian memory than the New Testament, Luther, and contemporary experience, which are the sources employed by the statement. Its amnesia contributes to its formlessness.
The statement promotes an ethic of responsibility—a good thing for mature people—but distances itself from any reliance on rules, another example of aversion to form, in this case formalism in ethics. For example, it cannot bring itself to affirm a rule against premarital sex or cohabitation, let along homosexual conduct. Rather, it pleads for responsibility in maintaining a level of sexual intimacy commensurate with the degree of commitment. While not favoring or giving approval to cohabitation, the statement does not proscribe it either. It inveighs against promiscuity but cannot proscribe premarital sex. Its ethic of responsibility might well allow both practices in certain circumstances. And what young person cannot find sufficient reason in his or her circumstances to justify both premarital sex and cohabitation? Clear rules might be important here, just as the rule against adultery makes things very clear for married couples. A solid ethic of responsibility would employ rules, some absolute in character.
The statement’s aversion to form gives it something of a Marcionite whiff. That aversion represents a distinct distancing from our Old Testament heritage. Little development of the creation story and the instituting by God of marriage. Little mention of the Commandments as guidance for Christian life. Little mention of the rather strict rules that undergirded life together in early Christian communities. No mention of the Old Testament—and New Testament—proscription of homosexual conduct. Indeed, little use of the law at all, in spite of its claim to honor it. It seems that, whenever Christians want to release sexuality from its created forms and from the commandments that guide it, they move away from the faith of Israel and fasten to New Testament emphases on incarnation and justification. Without the law, such emphases quickly lead to the “gospel of inclusion,” one without repentance or amendment of life. And, in the case of this statement, weak and indeterminate guidance for moral life.
It is not as if the old teachings are totally absent. They are not. But they are constantly qualified by an ethic of responsibility that shies away from forms of all kinds. I can’t say it better than the statement does itself: “A Lutheran sexual ethic deeply attuned to justification and incarnation extends well beyond the application of static principles, even biblical ones, to varying situations. This ethic is more about directing us to find a responsible place for sexuality in the service of God’s ongoing activity in the world than about containing its ambiguous power.”
Certainly the ELCA has not made a conscious decision to adopt the Marcionite heresy. But it, like other mainstream Protestant churches, has been pushed in that direction by strong feminist and gay-liberation movements within its membership. Those movements suspect that heterosexual males have been in charge of the historic faith from Abraham on down to the present time—and they want to call a halt to that. Shouldn’t women and gays and lesbians refuse to allow those heterosexual males define what to them are oppressive forms and rules? If we remove the sharp edges from the forms and dispense with the rules, won’t our general ethic of responsibility be applicable to all sorts of relationships? The statement seems to be saying “yes” to both those questions. The trouble is, saying “yes” also abandons the specific moral teachings of the Bible and Christian tradition.
Though I expected the statement to make an attempt at assessing homosexual conduct, it didn’t. But if the foregoing argument is at all compelling, the writers of the statement might be in the process of embracing a formless creation, which is a necessary prelude for the positive assessment of homosexual relations.
This unsettling suspicion overshadows the many good features of the statement. Its analysis of our current sexualized society and its many victims is one with which I heartily agree. (It seems to me, however, that the statement forgets about the millions of human beings eliminated by abortion, many of whom were the victims of irresponsible sexual behavior.) Its call for pastoral compassion for all is persuasive. Its spirit of civility and moderation is admirable. At times it speaks eloquently about marriage, though too little and too late. It makes an effort to take up the thorny questions of premarital sex and cohabitation, though it does so with less guidance than I think necessary. And, considering the difficulty of reaching consensus on these contentious issues, the statement proposes a serious line of argument, a subversive one with which I sharply disagree.
Robert Benne is director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College and the author of several books, including Reasonable Ethics: A Christian Approach to Social, Economic, and Political Concerns.
References
Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality
A Sexual Ethic for Teletubbies, or Lutherans Embrace a Formless World
By Robert BenneIn mid-March, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Task Force on Sexuality released a draft of what is supposed to become a Social Statement—a basis for internal church policy and a platform for advocacy in society. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort have been put into an unending series of studies that have wrestled with the vexing problems of assessing the morality of homosexual relations, and from that assessment making further judgments about the blessing of gay unions and the rostering of homosexual clergy who are in committed partnerships. The basic theological/ethical challenge to assess homosexual conduct has never been addressed adequately in any preceding document. This draft Social Statement is no different in spite of expectations: It simply says that the church is divided on that issue. The kind of theological/ethical argument in this current document, however, is precisely the kind that will set the stage for a revision of Lutheran teaching on sexual ethics in the future. Such a revision would mean that the ELCA is no longer a church following in the footsteps of the Lutheran Reformation.
One of the noticeably odd features of the new draft is its absence of “males and females,” “women and men,” “husbands and wives,” “boys and girls,” and “mothers and fathers.” Instead, one reads of “couples,” “partners,” “engendered persons,” “parents,” and “children.” The subjects of the statement seem to have no distinct features, a bit like the amorphous Teletubbies of children’s television. This reluctance to affirm definite forms extends to the statement’s posture toward marriage and the family, commandments and law, guiding principles, and especially toward rules. In fact, this aversion to specific forms seems to be the fatal flaw of the document, leading to a vagueness and fluidity that undermines its capacity for genuine guidance in the church.
This formlessness appears immediately in the statement’s theological and ethical foundations. The law, though affirmed, remains a ghostly, abstract, and empty category. No commandments are mentioned. No covenantal structures—such as God’s gift of marriage to Adam and Eve—are affirmed. Indeed, there is no explication of male and female together being created in the image of God. Rather, the statement tries to derive its sexual ethic from the incarnation of Jesus and the justification his work has wrought. One of most astounding statements in the document asserts that ‘a Lutheran sexual ethic looks to the death and resurrection of Christ as the source for the values that guide it’ (emphasis mine).
Certainly Jesus makes relevant statements about sexual ethics, but these have little to do with incarnation or justification. He reaffirms the creation account of woman and man being created in the image of God; he upholds marriage and offers very strict conditions for divorce. He condemns all sorts of sexual sins—adultery, fornication, lust, etc. But all these are built on the law of God he inherited from Jewish tradition, which gives the basic form and content to the sexual ethics he teaches and sometimes sharpens.
This effort to derive sexual ethics from incarnation and justification is a very un-Lutheran way of making an ethical argument. Luther argued that marriage is located in the order of creation and should be guided by natural law, best summarized in the Ten Commandments. Given that, he thought marriage should be under the jurisdiction of the state for the common good of society. He criticized precisely the Roman Catholic tradition that kept marriage completely under ecclesial authority (governed exclusively by canon law) and that located it in the order of redemption (marriage as a sacrament imparts saving grace). Rather, Luther proposed that marriage is first of all a social estate open to all, non-Christian and Christians alike. (See John Witte’s elaboration of the Lutheran teaching on marriage in his From Sacrament to Contract.)
While it is true that God’s justifying work in Christ enables us to take up our calling in marriage, which can then be made into a Holy Estate in the church’s blessing, the form and content of marriage are given by the structure and guidance of the law. The form is very specific—a life-long covenant of fidelity between a man and a woman oriented toward loving communion and procreation. It provides the “place of responsibility” where our vocation is lived out. No formlessness there.
The statement clearly de-centers marriage as the touchstone around which Christian sexual ethics are elaborated. It takes up marriage as a topic only near the end of the document. It is even equivocal about the God-ordained status of marriage. It affirms that “Marriage is a structure of mutual promises between a man and woman blessed by God,” yet later suggests that “marriage” (quotation marks in the original document) is accorded legitimacy merely by its “historic origin.” It tepidly allows that this church “does not wish to alter this understanding” but then hurries on to dilute its affirmation by observing that some states already use “marriage” to refer to same-gender unions.
Likewise, the statement remains resolutely formless when it takes up family life. It grudgingly agrees that the nuclear family fosters the development of trust in children and youth, but immediately notes that it has not always done so effectively. Later it opts for a functional definition of the family and suggests that many arrangements can get the tasks done, not just the “conventional one.” Its pastoral compassion for many in “broken” families overcomes the possibility of making a normative statement about the form of the family.
But the biblical and Christian moral traditions are not so reluctant. A child always has a mother and father: Jesus has Joseph and Mary, Cain and Abel have Adam and Eve. Though there may be extended and even “tribal” families, the Bible always depicts a child having a mother and a father. Great care is taken to affirm and nurture this triad. A Commandment is devoted to it. It is biblically and traditionally normative, and no amount of appropriate pastoral accommodation to the fracturing or confusion of the modern family will change that.
The writers of the statement also make a strange move when they decide to use “trust” as the central ethical principle for human relations in marriage and family life, while avoiding the use of “love” as a principle. Indeed, there is little reflection on the meaning and forms of love, yet another example of the aversion to specific forms.
Trust and love are two different things. The former is a more passive quality in which one person allows his or her being to be dependent on the trustworthiness of another. Love is a more active principle that moves outward toward the other. There are distinct forms of love—libido, eros, philia, agape—that are expressed in different kinds of relationships. Some forms of love are inappropriate in some kinds of relationship. Libidinous love ought not be expressed toward children or those outside the marital bond. Chastity is the Christian virtue that leads to self-control in these matters. Agape love, the crown of Christian ethics, makes unconditional commitments and heals and restores broken relationships. Sexual love—a lively mixture of libidinous and erotic love—is to be expressed fully only in marriage and is appropriate to form. The Bible and the Christian tradition clearly prohibit sexual love to be expressed between siblings, parent and children (incest), between different kinds of species (bestiality), and between those of the same sex (homosexuality.)
These sorts of distinctions are deeply embedded in the biblical material as well as in the Christian moral tradition held by nearly all Christians throughout the ages. Sadly, the Social Statement does not draw upon that tradition to make such distinctions. There is, after all, more in Christian memory than the New Testament, Luther, and contemporary experience, which are the sources employed by the statement. Its amnesia contributes to its formlessness.
The statement promotes an ethic of responsibility—a good thing for mature people—but distances itself from any reliance on rules, another example of aversion to form, in this case formalism in ethics. For example, it cannot bring itself to affirm a rule against premarital sex or cohabitation, let along homosexual conduct. Rather, it pleads for responsibility in maintaining a level of sexual intimacy commensurate with the degree of commitment. While not favoring or giving approval to cohabitation, the statement does not proscribe it either. It inveighs against promiscuity but cannot proscribe premarital sex. Its ethic of responsibility might well allow both practices in certain circumstances. And what young person cannot find sufficient reason in his or her circumstances to justify both premarital sex and cohabitation? Clear rules might be important here, just as the rule against adultery makes things very clear for married couples. A solid ethic of responsibility would employ rules, some absolute in character.
The statement’s aversion to form gives it something of a Marcionite whiff. That aversion represents a distinct distancing from our Old Testament heritage. Little development of the creation story and the instituting by God of marriage. Little mention of the Commandments as guidance for Christian life. Little mention of the rather strict rules that undergirded life together in early Christian communities. No mention of the Old Testament—and New Testament—proscription of homosexual conduct. Indeed, little use of the law at all, in spite of its claim to honor it. It seems that, whenever Christians want to release sexuality from its created forms and from the commandments that guide it, they move away from the faith of Israel and fasten to New Testament emphases on incarnation and justification. Without the law, such emphases quickly lead to the “gospel of inclusion,” one without repentance or amendment of life. And, in the case of this statement, weak and indeterminate guidance for moral life.
It is not as if the old teachings are totally absent. They are not. But they are constantly qualified by an ethic of responsibility that shies away from forms of all kinds. I can’t say it better than the statement does itself: “A Lutheran sexual ethic deeply attuned to justification and incarnation extends well beyond the application of static principles, even biblical ones, to varying situations. This ethic is more about directing us to find a responsible place for sexuality in the service of God’s ongoing activity in the world than about containing its ambiguous power.”
Certainly the ELCA has not made a conscious decision to adopt the Marcionite heresy. But it, like other mainstream Protestant churches, has been pushed in that direction by strong feminist and gay-liberation movements within its membership. Those movements suspect that heterosexual males have been in charge of the historic faith from Abraham on down to the present time—and they want to call a halt to that. Shouldn’t women and gays and lesbians refuse to allow those heterosexual males define what to them are oppressive forms and rules? If we remove the sharp edges from the forms and dispense with the rules, won’t our general ethic of responsibility be applicable to all sorts of relationships? The statement seems to be saying “yes” to both those questions. The trouble is, saying “yes” also abandons the specific moral teachings of the Bible and Christian tradition.
Though I expected the statement to make an attempt at assessing homosexual conduct, it didn’t. But if the foregoing argument is at all compelling, the writers of the statement might be in the process of embracing a formless creation, which is a necessary prelude for the positive assessment of homosexual relations.
This unsettling suspicion overshadows the many good features of the statement. Its analysis of our current sexualized society and its many victims is one with which I heartily agree. (It seems to me, however, that the statement forgets about the millions of human beings eliminated by abortion, many of whom were the victims of irresponsible sexual behavior.) Its call for pastoral compassion for all is persuasive. Its spirit of civility and moderation is admirable. At times it speaks eloquently about marriage, though too little and too late. It makes an effort to take up the thorny questions of premarital sex and cohabitation, though it does so with less guidance than I think necessary. And, considering the difficulty of reaching consensus on these contentious issues, the statement proposes a serious line of argument, a subversive one with which I sharply disagree.
Robert Benne is director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College and the author of several books, including Reasonable Ethics: A Christian Approach to Social, Economic, and Political Concerns.
References
Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Bishop MacBurney inhibited by Schori
Breaking News
Forward in Faith North America reacts to the inhibition of Bishop MacBurney
Apr 9, 2008
“It is a sad day when godly bishops are no longer free to provide pastoral care for those beyond our formal institutional boundaries.” FiF NA President
Today the Right Reverend Edward MacBurney, the bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy (Episcopal) received a Letter of Inhibition from Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA (TEC). The Inhibition forbids MacBurney from functioning as a bishop of TEC.
Last year MacBurney was invited by the Presiding Bishop & Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, to make a pastoral visit to a Southern Cone parish in San Diego, California, on his behalf. In a spirit of Anglican unity and Christian generosity, Bishop MacBurney agreed to respond to the pastoral needs of those outside TEC with whom TEC claims fellowship.
“This is an alarming move against a godly man who, without publicity, rightly helped a brother bishop provide care for his people,” said the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith NA and current TEC Bishop of Quincy (IL). This move against Bishop MacBurney is a clear warning that the leadership of TEC is endeavouring to bring the days of the biblically orthodox within TEC to a close. “Schori clearly has no intention to ‘live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything’ as she was quoted in Saturday’s interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Sandi Dolbee.
“While Schori extolled the imperative to worship together, her Inhibition is to prevent others from worshipping with Bishop MacBurney,” said Father Keith Acker who was also interviewed by Dolbee on Schori’s weekend visit to San Diego.
Internationally this is an attack upon the many world leaders of Anglican Churches (Primates) who have responded to the “burning house” of the ever increasingly post-Christian theology of TEC and its abandonment of the Bible as the Word of God in any meaningful sense.
Bishop MacBurney welcomes the opportunity to defend his actions from the scandalous neglect of Christian charity led by Katharine Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC. Bishop MacBurney will have 90 days to respond to the charges.
The Right Revd Keith L. AckermanPresident of Forward in Faith North America
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/pages/InhibitionBpMac.pdf
Forward in Faith North America reacts to the inhibition of Bishop MacBurney
Apr 9, 2008
“It is a sad day when godly bishops are no longer free to provide pastoral care for those beyond our formal institutional boundaries.” FiF NA President
Today the Right Reverend Edward MacBurney, the bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy (Episcopal) received a Letter of Inhibition from Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA (TEC). The Inhibition forbids MacBurney from functioning as a bishop of TEC.
Last year MacBurney was invited by the Presiding Bishop & Primate of the Southern Cone, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, to make a pastoral visit to a Southern Cone parish in San Diego, California, on his behalf. In a spirit of Anglican unity and Christian generosity, Bishop MacBurney agreed to respond to the pastoral needs of those outside TEC with whom TEC claims fellowship.
“This is an alarming move against a godly man who, without publicity, rightly helped a brother bishop provide care for his people,” said the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith NA and current TEC Bishop of Quincy (IL). This move against Bishop MacBurney is a clear warning that the leadership of TEC is endeavouring to bring the days of the biblically orthodox within TEC to a close. “Schori clearly has no intention to ‘live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything’ as she was quoted in Saturday’s interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Sandi Dolbee.
“While Schori extolled the imperative to worship together, her Inhibition is to prevent others from worshipping with Bishop MacBurney,” said Father Keith Acker who was also interviewed by Dolbee on Schori’s weekend visit to San Diego.
Internationally this is an attack upon the many world leaders of Anglican Churches (Primates) who have responded to the “burning house” of the ever increasingly post-Christian theology of TEC and its abandonment of the Bible as the Word of God in any meaningful sense.
Bishop MacBurney welcomes the opportunity to defend his actions from the scandalous neglect of Christian charity led by Katharine Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC. Bishop MacBurney will have 90 days to respond to the charges.
The Right Revd Keith L. AckermanPresident of Forward in Faith North America
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/pages/InhibitionBpMac.pdf
Friday, April 04, 2008
"Our Hearts are on Fire!"
Cap'n Bill here:
Out here at sea I miss a lot of news, I'm sure, but I got my email link and I do have my sources. Read this today:
Lutherans Concerned / North America invites people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to assemble with members of Reconciling in Christ and prospective RIC congregations at San Francisco State University July 3–6 under the theme, Hearts on Fire.
We’ll worship together, using a rich variety of traditions of the worshipping community. We’ll provide a blend of the familiar and the unique drawing on our Lutheran heritage and the wealth of liturgical practice in the area. We’ll network with one another, hear stories of joy and frustration, and make decisions together about the future direction of Lutherans Concerned / North America.
Hearts on Fire is more than a conference. We take pride in nurturing our participants. Many see the biennial assembly as a family reunion. In 2008, we hope to expand that family feeling by offering some new and exciting aspects to the assembly. Some the new aspects include:
Our Assembly is one week following San Francisco Pride. You can come to town for Pride and stay for the Assembly (all at San Francisco State University).
Assembly Pre-Events offer extra education and edification before the assembly begins.
Vacation Bible School will be offered for children of Assembly attendees and local RIC congregations. This will allow children to have a meaningful Assembly experience along with parents.
Please visit this website again to see what new information we have added. We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco!
That is the info from the LCNA site. This additional info is very interesting:
This gathering will provide participants with advocacy skills that can be applied in either a Lutheran and Episcopalian context. Bishop Robinson is a featured speaker. Jan Adams, Integrity's Field Organizer, also plans to provide a workshop on Inclusion Activism for Episcopalians (probably while LCNA members are having their business meeting).
So, just in case you've been in Borneo since 2003, Bishop Robinson is that Bishop Robinson, Gene Robinson, the mother of all gay advocates....
We can be sure GoodSoil will be brought up to speed on schism producing activism. Lord help us.
Out here at sea I miss a lot of news, I'm sure, but I got my email link and I do have my sources. Read this today:
Lutherans Concerned / North America invites people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to assemble with members of Reconciling in Christ and prospective RIC congregations at San Francisco State University July 3–6 under the theme, Hearts on Fire.
We’ll worship together, using a rich variety of traditions of the worshipping community. We’ll provide a blend of the familiar and the unique drawing on our Lutheran heritage and the wealth of liturgical practice in the area. We’ll network with one another, hear stories of joy and frustration, and make decisions together about the future direction of Lutherans Concerned / North America.
Hearts on Fire is more than a conference. We take pride in nurturing our participants. Many see the biennial assembly as a family reunion. In 2008, we hope to expand that family feeling by offering some new and exciting aspects to the assembly. Some the new aspects include:
Our Assembly is one week following San Francisco Pride. You can come to town for Pride and stay for the Assembly (all at San Francisco State University).
Assembly Pre-Events offer extra education and edification before the assembly begins.
Vacation Bible School will be offered for children of Assembly attendees and local RIC congregations. This will allow children to have a meaningful Assembly experience along with parents.
Please visit this website again to see what new information we have added. We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco!
That is the info from the LCNA site. This additional info is very interesting:
This gathering will provide participants with advocacy skills that can be applied in either a Lutheran and Episcopalian context. Bishop Robinson is a featured speaker. Jan Adams, Integrity's Field Organizer, also plans to provide a workshop on Inclusion Activism for Episcopalians (probably while LCNA members are having their business meeting).
So, just in case you've been in Borneo since 2003, Bishop Robinson is that Bishop Robinson, Gene Robinson, the mother of all gay advocates....
We can be sure GoodSoil will be brought up to speed on schism producing activism. Lord help us.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
New from Fortress Press
Shrimp here, reading yesterday's (not today's) announcement of a book release from Fortress Press. Fortress' new slogan is "The Power of Scholarship" and at the bottom of its front page one discovers that it is also "Innovative - Accessible - Ecumenical." A drier description is that Fortress Press is an imprint of Augsburg Fortress Publishers, the publishing ministry for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
No Delusion Necessary: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
MINNEAPOLIS March 31, 2008 -- While Richard Dawkins's best-seller The God Delusion roiled many people of faith, theologians were nonplussed. Most theologians today do not understand God in the same way as is being criticized so heavily in such books as Richard Dawkins and others. In fact, states theologian Richard Grigg, most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago.
Yet, Grigg argues, the many efforts to reconcile scientific worldviews with Christian faith still stop shy of the radical reconception of God begun in contemporary theology and made necessary by contemporary science. In his erudite and provocative book published by Fortress Press, Beyond the God Delusion, Grigg calls for a more radical theology, in which notions of divine transcendence and immanence, personhood, power, and role in the evolving universe are radicalized and reconceived.
Building on the work of such theologians as Sallie McFague and Gordon Kaufman, and with a strong grasp of the particulars of contemporary cosmology and biology, Grigg'€™s exciting work challenges readers to an intellectual honesty as sturdy as their faith.
Richard Grigg is Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, where he also chairs the department.
Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
ISBN: 978-0-8006-6272-1
Price: $16.00 / CAN $18.99 / UK £8.99
Spec: 5.5" x 8.5", paperback, 160 pages
________________________________________
To order call Augsburg Fortress at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com
Well, we don't know if "most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago." Neither are we sure that is the best way to combat Prof. Dawkins. We'll confess that of all the writers mentioned in the above announcement we've only read Sallie McFague. Which suggests to us that a good reading of, say, The Bible might be more helpful to those who've read Dawkins' rant.
Shrimp out.
No Delusion Necessary: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
MINNEAPOLIS March 31, 2008 -- While Richard Dawkins's best-seller The God Delusion roiled many people of faith, theologians were nonplussed. Most theologians today do not understand God in the same way as is being criticized so heavily in such books as Richard Dawkins and others. In fact, states theologian Richard Grigg, most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago.
Yet, Grigg argues, the many efforts to reconcile scientific worldviews with Christian faith still stop shy of the radical reconception of God begun in contemporary theology and made necessary by contemporary science. In his erudite and provocative book published by Fortress Press, Beyond the God Delusion, Grigg calls for a more radical theology, in which notions of divine transcendence and immanence, personhood, power, and role in the evolving universe are radicalized and reconceived.
Building on the work of such theologians as Sallie McFague and Gordon Kaufman, and with a strong grasp of the particulars of contemporary cosmology and biology, Grigg'€™s exciting work challenges readers to an intellectual honesty as sturdy as their faith.
Richard Grigg is Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, where he also chairs the department.
Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science and Religion
ISBN: 978-0-8006-6272-1
Price: $16.00 / CAN $18.99 / UK £8.99
Spec: 5.5" x 8.5", paperback, 160 pages
________________________________________
To order call Augsburg Fortress at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com
Well, we don't know if "most theologians left behind an unalloyed, classical theism about two hundred years ago." Neither are we sure that is the best way to combat Prof. Dawkins. We'll confess that of all the writers mentioned in the above announcement we've only read Sallie McFague. Which suggests to us that a good reading of, say, The Bible might be more helpful to those who've read Dawkins' rant.
Shrimp out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...