Thoughts on January 18

This post will be misunderstood. Not just maybe. It will be. I will say what I think anyway:

Back in the 70, while I was in college, a monumental election took place. Well, not really. It was merely Carter vs Ford. I admit, I liked Carter. He seemed different. He was not the standard political type. He was an engineer. He promised to do things different: He was a moral man and his administration was going to reflect just that. In all honesty, it did. Carter deserves his reputation as a moral, honest man.

He made mistakes. Every president does. He had high obstacles. Every president does. He had challenges. Ever president does. He was eventually defeated by Reagan. The reason, to me at least, was that, like a good engineer, Carter wanted to discover and define the problems that faced him so that a solution could be articulated and implemented. He did this in public. That was his mistake. He was defeated by a man who only spoke of his dreams and visions for America, not of her problems and he refused to be sidetracked into pathology. So while Cater wanted to talk about the gravity of the challenge, Reagan wanted to talk about the glory of the victory over the challenge.

Carter went away quietly in 1981. He reemerged as a humanitarian. A quiet champion of the poor at home and abroad. He did it not in word but in word and deed by his work building houses for the poor.

Carter is getting old and age, and the information age with its need for new fodder to rip apart, devour, and spit out, has brought a different Carter. His last book on Israel has brought him much scorn. If only he had kept quiet. Maybe all of us are in danger of becoming caricatures of ourselves if we are left to talk long enough. It certainly seems to be true for pastors who forget to retire and actually sit down.

Our nations heros often died young. John Kennedy comes to mind. How would his image have fared had he lived on and had an extra 30 years to make a nuisance of himself? We will not ever know. His image was and is faithfully kept clean and without blemish by old friends and admirers and a horde of people who stand to profit from it politically.

I wonder about Martin Luther King in this respect as well. He is rightly beloved because he seems to have understood that one could not oppose another human being by making that person less than human and less worthy of dignity and respect than oneself. As much as he knew the pathology of the society, of which he lamented in his personal letters from prison, he rose to speak of visions of a redeemed future on the horizon. Would he have kept that balance had he not been killed? His image and legacy, like JFK's, is carefully maintained and preserved and the question I pose has really no answer.

Many years have past since the 60's. Thanks to kabillion news or commentary channels on cable, the fine art of pathology is flourishing. Not only is G.W. Bush's presidency still being exegeted but so is Clinton's and Reagan's. We live in a large bowl where everyone is screaming about the wrong and outrageous that they see. Would MLK have escaped? Would Reagan, had Alzheimer's not taken his brain, have escaped? Both of their followers have gotten caught inextricably in this maze of screaming about wrong and outrage. Today, sitting down and lamenting the lot of your class, race, profession, geographical enclave, political persuasion, religion, or sexual persuasion are almost mandatory. There is no vision right now, anywhere. There is only tallies of wrongs and harsh reparationist or retributionist remedies, all claiming the right of the victim to define right and wrong as well as the right to define the proper corrective measure. But these corrective measures all lack an important thing: a vision of a redeemed future.

So today we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.-- good for us. Will we today speak of wrongs and reparations and fixes or will we speak of the visions and dreams that Acts 2 promised the people of God? Without them, no right will ever be seen as right and no solution to a wrong will ever move us closer to a future that is any more righteous than the present, it would be merely "different."

The people of God must quit complaining and begin to dream again.

The Dreaded Cycle

Kuebler Ross famously said that grief takes the path of anger, denial, depression, bargaining, and acceptance. Any ELCA reader might want to check where on this scale they fit. If you are nowhere on it then, good for you. Yet in a significant portion of the church, how significant we will never know because there is no mechanism to determine that and those who could do not want to, the grief cycle is in progress.

To recapitulate: In late August, the Church Wide Assembly of the ELCA passed a social statement that posed the appropriateness of gay marriage and then proceeded to expand that decision with a number of further resolutions that would open the door to gay, partnered clergy. This day had been long in the making. It was resisted by an odd coalition called CORE. It was driven by a focused faction called LCNA that had raised funds for years and was expertly managed ad advised. It is said that they also had Higgins Road and the Presiding Bishop on their side. Reports are that the latter has said at a Hein Frei lecture that he was hoping the ban on gay clergy would end during his time in office.

The former, Higgins, is easier to call. The news releases are clear: Be mad if you like but look, we are doing such good stuff. A recent news release touted the gracious invitation by a gay pastor to a CORE board member with the implication that the revisionist side is ever so gracious and the conservatives are all reactionary by withholding funds from the ELCA. That withholding will hurt our efforts to wipe out malaria in Africa.

A distraction: Malaria would better be fought by giving the African nations access to DDT again. The UN talked them into not using it. Zimbabwe reintroduced DDT and cut malaria by 90%. It must also be mentioned that the malaria initiative is a UN millennium goal. We merely signed on to it. There will be money but no DDT.

For that matter, the withheld money will not just go into socks or mayonnaise jars. It will go to mission, some defined by Matthew 28, some defined by Luke 4, where the center of ELCA mission- think seems to be. Social ministry is not mission. We have found that out at the congregational level a long time ago.

But here we stand. One side is celebrating a victory and is reported to be scheming, yes that is the right word, to solidify the victory. The conservative side is in the process of making that easy. Most of them have withdrawn from ELCA interaction on national and local levels. They are in but not really of the ELCA. CORE is in the process of making a loose association, a "synod," a network shall we call it, so congregations can ignore the ELCA and their own bishop. How this will work is not entirely clear to me.

The greatest side effect that I see is that the next round of Synodical assemblies will have elections to leadership positions without conservative candidates or votes on the floor. The result is obvious. Even with inept maneuvering synod councils, CWA delegates, and certainly bishops will be left of center. The only question to be answered is: "how far?"

Th wisdom of the spiritual directors of the church has been that one is not equipped to make decisions in the state of grief, which brings me back to Kuebler Ross. Right now most conservatives are in depression. Go to any web discussion site like ALPB and you will note that the number of posts by ELCA conservatives has dropped dramatically. I recognize that a number of them are also working behind the scenery to find ways to organize but on the whole the right side of the house is in grief and right now in the state of depression.

So what will happen when the next CWA has given the opportunity to bargain? Surely that bargaining will not bring a better result for the right. What will acceptance look like? It has been pointed out to me that being in a church body but not participating in it and keeping it at arms length at all times begs the question whether one is actually still in that church body. I myself have likened it to the onset of a divorce. One spouse has moved into the guest room and has made it known that they are done with the marriage. I have seen only one household remain somewhat intact afterwards. Visualize his and hers refrigerators with locks. My friend Scott points out to me that this situation is unstable. For the spiritual good of the congregation one must either accept the situation with all its implications and stay or one must accept that one is no longer of the ELCA and therefore there is only harm in staying.

Policies and manuals are now being written. Their publication will most certainly start another round of outrage. If the ELCA truly wants to bear with one another's burdens one must wonder what"burden" might be put on the revisionist side. Since much of it will have to be out to synod votes that now will no longer contain right side voices it is not likely that there will be any burden bearing going on any time soon.

The Old Testament tells of times when everyone went to their own tents and did as they saw right. Whenever this happened horrible things would follow. We in the ELCA are now in the place where all of us have been intentionally sent to our own tents to do as we see fit. This cannot fail but end up in the same places as it did in times of old. May God hurry the steps of Philistine and judge.

Glad to be left behind at home

It is said that a fox, its foot caught in a trappers snare, will gnaw off its leg to make a break for freedom.

I have broken a promise I made to myself. I had promised that I would not watch the ELCA assembly online. But I have. I am I should say. It is on the other side of the screen. Having watched most of this morning's session, I consider myself fortunate to not be there. Like the fox, I would be gnawing off my leg or arm to get out of the hall.

I know, there will be proud reports made by the organization. I know, nobody will step to the important mics and be down in the mouth. I know, they all will wax eloquently about all sort of stuff. If you were not eloquent, proud of what you have done or well spoken, you like are not asked to take the mic.

Frankly, what I hate is the glitz. I hate the poster boy speeches, you know, the ones that start: "I remember a soldier I was ministering with and . . ." I really hate someone at the mic who gives a greeting but then wants to have the assembly sing a song that goes with her speech and I really get enraged when that same person then presumes to be the conductor of the assembly. But most of all, it is the glitz. This is a sales meeting. Short and simple. I hate it when my synod does this. I hate it when the ELCA reps import this to my synod. And I am really glad I am not in Minnesota to have to sit through a week of it.

We Will Make the Wrong Decision

The great big dance in Minneapolis will begin in a mere 2 hours. Oh the things we will decide. Actually, I don't really think there are as many things as it seems. At least there are not 7 days worth of things to be discussed and hashed out. Much of the assembly, as any church assembly, will be used for non legislative matters. Much will be given to reports. Much will be given to "greetings" from various dignitaries and ministry partners. It happens at every assembly. As a church, we are proud of what we do. As a bishop, like a pastor at annual meeting, Mark Hanson will want to give report to the church that shows that the church- wide expression of the ELCA is efficient and faithful in what it does.

There will also be more worship at this assembly. The bishop has made that known. The delegates or voting members will be invited to worship with one another at preset intervals so that they have the experience of worshipping in peace next to those with whom they disagree, which also entails worshipping with those who are present to organize for the defeat or passage of the ministry proposal before the assembly this week. Therein lies the rub: Worship at assembly in a divided church is precarious business. It might be worship, it might stink to high heaven. Who knows but God what the spirit of the worship is at the moment.

It also does not serve the spirit of worship at the assembly that the various sides have made it clear that whatever the decision might be, they will soldier on to make their side's position dominant. The assembly can worship all she wants. If some, if not most, of her members are of a different spirit the chance for spontaneous conversion of the church are slim. They might be at peace but they will not be of one mind.

And the church, the ELCA in this case, is not worshipping with the assembly if you allow me to say so. Yes, we are praying, but each of us are in the same boat as the assembly. We either have plans to fight or flee, or at least, we have done a careful dance between the positions that will no longer be possible next Sunday and we watch quietly to see how we will pull the rabbit out of the hat this time.

Even worship aside, for practical reasons, we will make a bad decision. You note that I have not predicted which way the lot will fall this week, and, yes, lot is the right description as the outcome might just as well be random. The decision itself is the problem. Neither side has given the indication that they are willing to support or live with a decision that does not go their way. Both side must have, I assume, a strategy to solidify the political victory, should they gain it, or a strategy to win the war in 2011 should they not.

In other words the factions, but more important, the average ELCA member, pastor, or congregation has today an opinion which decision they will or will not support, even if they do not endorse any officially. That means that whatever the decision might be this week, the church, the organization that is about to have a decision making assembly, will not get behind the decision as one people. It is as if a congregation decides that they might want to build a new wing to the house but only a few really want to talk to the architect and many have no intention whatsoever to support the project.

Often, the case arrises that two congregations in similar places and positions have made important decisions. They might have decided to go whole hog with modern worship or they might have decided to do the opposite and go whole hog with high traditional worship. Both congregations succeed. It happens all the time and baffles the experts. The common thread in both cases is the pig. You know, the whole hog, the giver of bacon. Commitment of the whole body to go with this decision without listening, much less rewarding second guessing. In a binary decision, the commitment to the decision after it has been made is more important than the choice itself. (Friedmann, Failure of Nerve)

In the ELCA, in 2009, concerning the matter of gay ordination, dissent is built into every vote and decision we ever take or make. Next Sunday there will not be 100% buy-in, or 90%, or even 70%, probably not even 60%. That makes whatever decision the ELCA makes this week the wrong decision.

Organizations that make the wrong decision are forced to flounder until they die or, in weakened form, finally make a decision that all the membership can sign on to. That time has not come for the ELCA, though numbers suggest that the time will come. For now, we will make the wrong decision.

Gobsmacked

One is ethically and morally bound to admit when one is wrong. It is the gentlemanly thing to do. My last post on the 2009 synod assembly is an instance of me being wrong.

Where to begin? Well, first of all the tone at the microphones was decidedly muted. No blatant accusations or slurs, no snap psychological diagnoses of other speakers. There were some muted comments from the people in the seats but that was about it. Time had been set aside to discuss the human sexuality issues. It went by peacefully. Only one speaker approached the mic for the discussion when the resolutions came to a vote. One speaker, the runner up in the last election for bishop, stepped to the mic and began to read bishop Peter Rogness' letter to his synod in Minnesota but he was cut off because he had no permission to quote the piece in toto neither, I would think, was the thing in order from a parliamentary stand. 

All of them passed.  Yes, all of them passed both the pro and the con resolutions, though one was ruled out of order because it would have memorialized the CWA to set parliamentary rules for itself after CWA had already done so. We passed it all others without much discussion and we were civil about it. 

Did we talk it through? No.  We passed it on to CWA. That may actually be mature.  Why, after all, kill yourself today about matter that we really do not influence. We will get CWA's voting results and then we can figure out what it means at home.

Other resolutions also passed with minor changes. An argument was raised about the veracity of the scientific claims in the Earth Keeping resolution. The resolution was really not helped by the claims that all scientists were in agreement. It would have been improved by a theological rationale  that did not sound as if it had emerged out of a 5th grade Sunday School class but it passed.

The Braille resolution passed after the writer explained that Augsburg Fortress was not in the process of producing ELW materials in Braille. My apologies to her for my comment in the last post.

The resolution about the ELCA being too theistic passed as well. No discussion. It will be an interesting clergy conference.

Hunger- passed. Of course

Book of Faith- passed. Of Course, but it was amended to make it less legalistic. No every meeting of synod has to begin with bible studies. 

It all passed, including the budget, without a peep.

I am gobsmacked. I also have no idea why this sudden calm. 

The financial reports were good. the ELCA thanked the synod for being one of only 8 who did not decrease mission support. The budget was not questioned.

Workshops were held and appreciated. 

It must be said that the assembly was lightly attended.  Just over 400 showed up compared with close to 700 last year. Only 7 elected positions were contested. Yet, an analysis escapes me right now past maybe this: We are tired in Southern Ohio. 

Yes, Virginia, there will be a 2009 assembly

There is no bishop's election this year, so things are a lot less tense prior to the assembly of the Southern Ohio Synod.  Anyone who has hung around here for any length of time, knows that this sort of calm tends to be shattered at assembly by one or more, what shall we call them, discussions? This year will probably be no different. I would predict that the budget will be contentious but that would be redundant, as the budget discussion always turns into a near shoutfest.

This year, it seems, is the year of resolutions.  Normally, we deal with 2 to 4 of them, the rest artfully ruled out of order prior to the assembly.  This year we where mailed 10, yes, 10 resolutions.  The obvious ones first: There is one that comes to us from the Columbus area and asks us to call on the National assembly to follow their passing of the great 2009 sexuality statement with specific actions.  As expected, the resolution call for actions intended to make the great issue of the day, homosexuality, an accepted mainstream reality.  This year, we also will consider 3 resolutions to the contrary, calling on the ELCA to reject the statement, the policy changes, and the Church Council's ruling on the need vote threshold.  

A quick translation: We will spent significant time on the synod floor insulting each other.  I might be surprised by this year, but if the last years are a good way to tell the future, then there will be somewhat uncivil debate.

One resolution is the usual no brainer: we are against hunger.  OK move on.

Another one wants to set a minimum age for ordination. I have no idea what evils I should fear here that make this necessary.  We do have a candidacy process that is in place to take care of immaturity even if it is found in 60 year old bodies, but if we must, oh well.

Yet another resolution calls on us to become a Book of Faith Synod and start every meeting with reading and meditation on scripture. This synod has the habit of dedicating a third of its assembly to lectures by theologians and biblical scholars, a habit instituted by a previous assembly many years ago. One has to wonder if the scholars will count as Book of Faith or if this merely adds more protocol.  But then, who would vote against the bible?

There is a "green" resolution in the materials that asks us to . . oh why list it, you know what it likely will say.  What caught my eye was that the drafters asked that a commission be established that will provide "leadership, oversight, and direction" to the congregation and synod. "Oversight?" "We are from the Southern Ohio Synod Earthkeeping Team, komrad, where are your electric bills? Where is your green curriculum? Where are the carbons of your advocacy letters?" One must wonder why anyone would write "oversight" into such a resolution. In Southern Ohio one might also wonder if one is not being paranoid.  Maybe there was an ulterior motive.  Maybe Not. 

A resolution about Braille resources is likely to be pitched before we get there.  They exist and the drafter probably merely ran out of patience in locating them. Benign stuff this.

The greatest eyebrow raiser is the remaining resolution. It claims that the ELCA and the SOS are loosing members because we are perpetuating a "theistic understanding of God." Yes, you read it right, we are loosing members because we believe in the existence of God and because the all have an immature faith, referring to God as "the man upstairs." An aside: I have heard the "man upstairs" lingo from Christians over the years. Further contact with them tells me that their faith is much more nuanced than to take either" man" or  "upstairs" literal.  Yet. the resolution was offered by one who is not doing nuance these days. It has been pointed out to me that the thing reads as if the drafter has just completed a university class on the theology of Bp. Spongg. Anyway, what to do.  The resolution merely asks that we gather and discuss the problem. But how do I vote for a nothing resolution that is based on a stream of drivel masquerading as a preamble?  One will and must hope that the drafter will proceed to make an ass of himself on the synod floor and therefore the whole thing will go down, sunk by a laity that has had it with nonsense. We must hope.

We will meet in a theatre style auditorium this year; no tables, no way to get out without stepping over many other attendees.  This venue has been used before and was a travesty then. That alone will be a reason for increased blood-pressures.  Worship will be at the big church across the street.  Ordinations will be had. The clergy will march in an sit in the overflow, never to be seen again by the congregation. Lovely.

There you have it. I see at least 3 good fights this assembly. I will make sure to have plenty of Ibuprofen and an ample supply of Tums available, along with a bible, a Book of Concord, and a copy of Robert's. Come by if you need any of it. 

The Kids Get it . . .

A short note about a recurring notion that seems to flow through the debates that are contorting the ELCA these days.

At the last conclave someone, speaking on the hot topic of the day, gay ordination, noted that: "We could just go on and then our kids will finally get this right. They get it, you know . . ."

If I read this correctly then we old whipper snappers should just bloody well shut up and let the young geezers, who apparently are so much wiser and better informed and up to date, determine what is right and wrong. 

I was young once, 30 years ago. I "got" all kind of things then, much of it listed in the new sexuality statement's section on practices the church opposes.  I also note that the kids "got it" when Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung, and Timothy Leary for that mater, preached their messages. 

I must wonder what kind of argument this might be. We are to let those who have not been seasoned by life and who have not been fully catechized make decisions of gravity? It is said that men rush their pregnant wives to the hospital as liberals but drive home with their first child securely ticked into the baby carrier in the back seat as conservatives, especially if the child is a little girl. There is some truth to this. Much of what the kids "get" is best not observed by their elders and sometime even the law. Those same thing are best not observed by these "kids" when their own children "get it." 

Whatever we might think about making decisions in the ELCA, this is certain: We are not absolved from the duty to teach the next generation thoroughly before we set them loose. There is no deferring the matter to the next generation. Teaching must be now and its content better hold hands with the wisdom of millennia  gone by.