Schism

I often say that the only ones who cause schism are the ones willing to leave.

I have attempted to leave. Around 2000 through 2003, I made some attempts to leave the church. I never really lost my faith (although it changed quite a lot), but I really wanted to just not deal with the church. We can be such a backward, superstitious people. I say that with a sense of confession. I can be such a backward and superstitious person. Rather than look at what we're learning through science and asking, "what does this tell us about God?" we want to reject it and say, "that must be wrong, since I believe God works this way."

Among other things.

There's lots of talk of schism. In my seminary days, I spent a lot of time learning about other faith traditions and how ecumenical dialog was carried on. I believed the greatest scandal of the church was it's many divisions. As such, places such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox had much appeal to me.

I no longer find unity to be all that precious, neither do I find it so simply by looking at the ancient churches. Unity is nice. I would hope we might find common ground and mission. I don't know---I honestly do not know---how much I value it at this moment.

If the ELCA passes measures to start exploring rites for same-sex coupling, if they start down the road to ordaining GLBT folk, I will be very happy. Some will be very angry and leave the ELCA. This hurts. This tells me that my full participation in the church is such a terrible thing that some people can not abide in the same body as me, fully participating.

If the ELCA does not pass these measures---I will be the angry one. What is a rational response to being told over and over "you're not good enough"? What is a faithful response to knowing that, for probably another generation, the church will maintain a second-class status for people simply because when they fall in love, they fall in love with people of their own gender? What does my conscience tell me is faithful, loving action when I see another generation of young people raised in an environment where, if they discover they are having crushes on the "wrong" people, they have to offer that information with fear (or at best, uncertainty), where they are encrouaged to keep this part of their life so closely guarded and secret---especially if they hear God calling them to serve the church?

This is unhealthy territory. I've been asked by good, gay Christian friends and acquaintances why I've stayed with the ELCA this long. They have seen in me the wear I carry from not feeling free to explore fully vocational options in the church (and I don't want to be a pastor---I think that's fairly well explored). My life at 45, underemployed (in a job I like quite a lot, but still, really, hardly uses my best, fullest abilities), feeling terribly unrooted even after being in one place for over 5 years (which is an adult record for me), never having had a significant relationship (beyond some very good friendships) . . . these are results, I think, of not feeling worthy. My lifelong devotion to the church---I was the kid who asked to go to church, the one who begged we not skip a Sunday---was met in adulthood by the knowledge that I am disordered, I am a divisive element, I am one of "those people" that wants to tear apart the church.

So, that's more personal than I like to get.

But the thing remains. Schism looks likely, no matter what happens this year at Churchwide Assembly. Schism is caused by the ones who leave (at least insofar as the ELCA doesn't have a real strong record for excommunication). So who will cause it? The ones who are angry because "those people" are now accepted into the clergy? Or the ones who are told they are not worthy to fully participate in the life of the church?

I believe there must be a third way, but I do not know what it is. I believe it will require changing of hearts and minds. Metanoia. I do not know how it works. It's something of God. Mysterious. Hard to grasp but all around us.

De Facto Local Option

There is much made of allowing for local options in ordaining of GLBT folk into the ministry of the church.

The ELCA (via predecessor bodies) has been ordaining women for almost 40 years. I still hear people say things like, "I don't know, I still prefer a man at the altar." A friend, who is a woman and an ordained minister who is doing interim work, recently told me that someone at her interim call told her, "You know, I would never have thought I'd like a woman pastor, but you're okay."

Since the structure of the ELCA is such that only local congregations call and ordain pastors (from a list of approved candidates for such call, of course), doesn't it appear that local congregations still, nearly 2 decades after the struggle for women's ordination, practice a de facto local option in denying women's ordination?

If a local option, thusly called, is decried as an admission to the lack of consensus, what do we make of these people and places that have still never called a woman as pastor? I'm speaking of the places that have not called a woman because she is a woman, not the places that would consider a woman, but found a man to be the better candidate at the moment. Is this not a silent lack of concensus? Is this not a de facto exercise of local option in ordination of women?

I think it would be difficult to say that the ordination of women has been a mistake. There are any number of gifted, called women of God doing the work of God in parishes, campus ministries, and all kinds of specialized ministries. But concensus on everyone accepting the ordination of women? This seems to be a lie.

So, it seems to me, is the need for consensus on the ordination of GLBT folk. There is no doubt that there are GLBT pastors who are already doing ministry. They do so under a cloak of silence and---yes---local option of bishops and other clergy who go along with the silence. All we're asking for now is the lifting of that cloak.

Images of God (and us)

I'm going to ask two questions that are really one question, just asked different ways. I think. It's a question of how we view God and how we view ourselves.

1. I've heard some say in regard to homosexuality (and maybe to other things as well) something like: "If it was just me, I don't care, but this is God's word!" In effect, the speaker is saying that s/he has no problem but God does and therefore the speaker must act/speak on God's behalf, regardless of the speaker's personal convictions. What does this mean? Does the speaker have more (tolerance) (acceptance) than God? Does is mean that God has a stricter (criteria) (judgment) than the speaker?

2. I've seen people be in agony over the salvation of a loved one because they've felt the loved one had crossed an unforgivable sign. The lover of the one would do anything to save the loved one from the fires of hell, because the former believes the latter to be, deep down, a good person, but still fears God's (judgment) (wrath) on the loved one. What does this mean? Does the lover of the one (love more) (forgive more) than God? Does the lover of the one have a weaker sense of (judgment) (justice) than God?

What are the ramifications/implications of this sort of language?

Someone somewhere once said something to the effect: God's wrath is but a teaspoon in the oceans of God's love. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Was it Augustine? (I can't find it via Google---too many common words.) Does this equation seem true or false? Does it relate to the issues before the ELCA this year?

Discerning What We're Looking for in the Church

In the Gospel According to Luke, John the Baptizer sends friends to ask Jesus, "are you the one we are looking for or is there someone else?" Jesus responds with a redirection: Go and tell what you have seen and heard.

This is second hand, but I've heard it said that there are people in opposition to GLBT full inclusion who have asked for a halt to all the stories we tell. Enough with the stories---let's keep to the theology of the matter! But where are we without stories?

Should GLBT folk serve as pastors? What have we seen? They're already doing it. Are they all good pastors? Probably not. Certainly not. Are all straight pastors good pastors? Certainly not. But are there good straight pastors? And good GLBT pastors? This is also a certainty.

I've heard stories of churches growing after becoming a Reconciling in Christ congregation. Doubtlessly, there are stories of churches shrinking because a ccongregation took that stand.

I've seen GLBT pastors serving in many different situations---parishes, campus ministries, chaplaincies---that are doing good, even transformative work among the people of God. I know of one GLBT pastor who I would not trust to take care of a potted cactus.

So what have you seen and heard? Are there hungry people getting fed or are they starving still? Is there healing happening or only woundedness?

Tell what you've seen and heard. As Jesus suggests, experience matters.