Pastor's Message

Fear Takes On Flesh in the ELCIC

Fear develops from division. The members of the ELCIC are divided on issues, including how Holy Scriptures are to be read and interpreted and the blessing/marriage of same gender couples.  This fear is often expressed as concern that these divisions could cause a schism within the ELCIC. The debate on authority and interpretation of Scripture and blessing/marriage of same gender couples has caused a division in the hearts and minds of the members of the ELCIC; as a result, many fear that even if debates don’t blow our denomination apart, votes on the issues underlying the debates certainly will. Some of these fears have taken on flesh - congregations have left the ELCIC and members of a congregation have been excluded from membership and denied the sacraments. Why did this happen? Will this fear continue? The purpose of this article is to address these questions and offer a way forward.  

Division is nothing new in the church; rather it is to be expected. Jesus declared that the proclamation of the Gospel would bring division.

 49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."[Luke 12:49-53]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ caused division within the community formed around the Old Covenant. This division moved Saul of Tarsus, a member of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee, to persecute followers of Jesus Christ. This division caused a mob to stone the deacon Stephen to death. The Gospel of Jesus Christ caused division within the early Church; John’s, Paul’s and Peter’s epistles testify to the reality and substance of these divisions. The Church continues to be deeply divided. Today, the church is divided over the issue of how the Holy Scriptures are to be viewed and interpreted. The substance of the debate is most clearly and cogently stated in a piece written by Reverend Ben Smillie, a United Church Minister, and quoted in the Vancouver Sun, August 5th, 1965.

“If you want further documentation as to why I’m against [Billy] Graham take a look at how his campaigns encourage Biblical ignorance.

On the research committee on which I served, a member told us that when he preached on the book of Jonah, he interpreted it as a story of man’s rebellion from God. When asked whether he explained that this was not a historical story about a man swallowed by a whale, but rather a post exilic allegory, he replied that he certainly did not.

Until we muster the honesty to level with our people and give them the truth, that the Book of Jonah is an allegory written by an anonymous writer after the Babylonian captivity who was disturbed at the hardness of his people; until we explain it as a tract for its time and so a tract for all time against race hatred, then we simply don’t know the book of Jonah.

Instead of Biblical Scholarships, Graham and Ford use the approach, “the Bible says” and leave it at that.

Nothing is said about the Bible being composed partly of legend and myth and allegory, and so Christians continue to hear the word of God ignorantly. They go on believing in clay made man, a floating zoo, an amphibious footed Jesus, a son of God who demonstrated his divinity as a home brew artist by turning water into wine and topped with an ascension that looks like a Cape Kennedy blastoff.

All these problems are implicit in a Billy Graham crusade, which some United Church Ministers, and even the odd theological professor, bewilderingly support.”

It seems that, some 42 years later, we are still involved in the same debate and we seem to stand along the same dividing line which can be described as follows:

• On one side of this divide we have those who are labeled literalists or fundamentalists; who come at the Bible and interpret the same as the inspired Word of God.  They acknowledge that sometimes Jesus and the Prophets used parables and illustrations, and that unless the text states otherwise, they believe the Bible says what the Bible says. They believe that the Bible transcends time and context “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” [Isaiah 40:8]. I stand on this side of the divide.

• On the other side of the divide, we have historical critical theologians. They come at the Bible and interpret the same in light of their own fundamental presuppositions; namely, that the text is composed mostly of myth, legend and allegory. They believe that the text provided teaching and guidance for the period of time during which the text was written; the goal of theology is to find the original truth behind the text and express this truth for the present historical context. The Bible then contains the word of God which must be mined for, and interpreted into, the contemporary context.

Rev. Smillie reminds us that these two interpretive paradigms are by their very nature antagonistic and mutually exclusive. Each paradigm or theology leads to different and mutually exclusive conclusions. The debate over the blessing/marriage of same gender couples is a prime example of the antagonistic nature of the two theologies.

• The understanding of those labeled as literalist/fundamentalist is that the fundamental structure of God’s created order is heterosexual. God’s most passionate desire for humanity is to be coupled in partnerships between one man and one woman involved in a committed lifelong relationship blessed by God. Old and New Testament texts declare that homosexuality is viewed biblically as a departure from the heterosexual structure of God's creation. Persons who engage in homosexual behavior are sinners only as are all other persons -- alienated from God and neighbor. For all these reasons, those labeled as literalists/fundamentalists believe that blessing or marrying same gender couples by the church is not permitted.

• The understanding of those labeled as historical critical theologians would contend that the Old and New Testament texts referred to were fashioned to meet the challenges the community of faith faced in their particular historical context. The homosexual behavior described in these texts involved sex between males that was not consented to by one of the partners. It is argued that the authors of these texts could not have comprehended the modern homosexual and the advances in our understanding of human sexuality; accordingly, these texts must be reinterpreted to fit this historical context, namely to permit the blessing/marriage of same gender couples involved in committed relationships.

Rev. Smillie’s attitude toward the fundamentalist/literalist could not be viewed as putting the most charitable construction on the theologies and understanding of one’s brothers and sisters in Christ. However, the view of the fundamentalist/literalist theologians towards Rev. Smillie’s theology and his understanding of the Bible mirror Dr. Smillie’s view towards them.  Christians on both sides of the divide accuse the other side of ignorance and seem to blame the very existence of the other side for creating a hostile environment that impedes the spread of the Gospel. Rev. Smillie’s feelings toward biblical literalists and fundamentalists run deep and exude a fear. The fear emanating from the literalist and fundamentalist side of the divide toward those labeled historical critical theologians is equal in nature and intensity.   

Rev. Smillie revealed an interpretive divide between denominations; so-called fundamentalist evangelical churches and so-called mainline protestant churches; however, a look at our denomination reveals the existence of an interpretive divide between congregations in the ELCIC. The interpretive divide within the wider church was exposed by the resolutions put forward by the National Church Council (“NCC”) at our 2005 and 2007 national conventions. Both these resolutions would have initiated a process by which some congregations in the ELCIC would be granted the authority to bless same gender couples. Once any issue is reduced to a resolution that must be voted upon by an assembly, the issue causes division and action. The impending vote compelled those who passionately supported and passionately opposed the subject motions, to speak on the motions and to develop a consensus in the group which must vote. The interpretive divide took on flesh before the 2007 convention when Solid Ground hosted its “Equipping the Saints Conference,” which addressed both the authority of Scripture/interpretation of the Bible, and the blessing of same gender couples from the historical and traditional view, and National Bishop Schultz’s tour around the ELCIC during which he spoke in favor of the NCC’s resolution which would have paved the way to blessing same gender couples. This interpretive divide took on flesh at the conventions.  On the final ballot for the election of the national bishop, the delegates to our 2007 national convention were almost evenly split between a candidate aligned with those on the side of the interpretive divide labeled literalist/fundamentalist and a candidate aligned with those on the side of the interpretive divide labeled historical critical theologians.  The same was true with respect to most of the races for National Church Council. However, at the end of the day, the candidates aligned with the historical critical side of the interpretive divide were elected.  Yet, at both the 2005 and 2007 conventions, when the delegates were asked to affirm the NCC’s assertion that the blessing of same gender couples represents a mission strategy which congregations and then synods must decide; the majority of the assembly, by a narrow margin, did not approve the motions.

Reports of conflict within congregations continue to surface following last summer’s national convention. Parishes elected delegates to the 2005 and 2007 national conventions who were called to vote on these resolutions, including the resolutions relating to the blessing of same gender couples. The vote cast by each delegate was informed and guided by many factors including: the Holy Scriptures; our confessions of faith; our constitution, bylaws and policies, procedures and teachings of our church; the information presented in the bulletin of reports for the Convention; the thoughts, feelings and beliefs expressed in each delegate’s congregation; the debate at the convention; informal discussions at the convention; the delegates own thoughts, beliefs, feelings and convictions; and the guiding of the Holy Spirit. This interpretive divide took on flesh before and during the 2005 and 2007 convention when congregations submitted petitions in opposition to each NCC resolution relating to the blessing/marriage of same gender couples. Each petition required the congregation that submitted the same to meet, discuss the substance of the petition and vote on it.  This compulsion also took on flesh when congregations came together to discuss, debate and vote on the resolutions to be presented at each national convention, so that the delegate would know his/her congregation’s position.

When a group within the church, or any organization, makes a move or proposes a resolution, an equal and opposite reaction comes forward from the other group. Solid Ground responded to the NCC’s motion on the blessing of same gender couples for the 2007 national convention with a conference that challenged the same. In response to the Solid Ground conference, our National Bishop traveled around the country speaking and a full-day event was held in the Kitchener/Waterloo area, which supported the NCC’s resolution and interpretive paradigm. In each of these events, the interpretive divide was exposed. Each side made a passionate case to all present for their way of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, our Confessions of Faith and the teachings of our church; and at the same time took the opposing theology to task, pointing out its weakness and blaming the other side for the division in the church. It is in the building up of one’s position and the tearing down of the other’s position that a tragic thing can happen: people begin to draw lines in the sand, take positions and vow to “move the church forward even if it means we lose some members and congregation;”  “take the church back and restore orthodoxy,”or “leave this church.”  This same dynamic took shape within congregations with Pastors and congregants on either side of the interpretive divide.

The equal and opposite reaction to the leadership’s resolution or motion will necessarily cause the leadership to reason, feel and believe that their leadership is being attacked and undermined. The leadership must respond to those opposed to the leadership’s decision, with discipline being the most severe response. Those opposed to the leadership are forced to respond again. This back and forth will continue on and on until something happens to stop the cycle. This interpretive divide, the cycle of action and reaction and its resolution, took on flesh after the convention when a congregation in the Synod of Alberta and the Territories voted to leave the ELCIC, joining the Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC). The congregation’s position on the interpretive divide drove the decision to leave the ELCIC. Congregational members believed that the ELCIC had deviated from its traditional and historic understanding and interpretation of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions and further believed that this new course would not change. The interpretive divide took on flesh again, in the form of disciplinary procedures within a congregation in the BC Synod, which resulted in the exclusion of seven lay persons from membership in the congregation together with the denial of sacraments.  This group took actions which resulted in the issue of blessing/marriage of same gender couples being placed before the congregation without the support of the majority of leadership of the congregation and, as a result, they were disciplined.             

These two interpretive paradigms and the divide caused by them is very real. This divide calls each of us to search our souls and declare where we stand.  Each one of us must ask and answer these questions:

• Do I really believe in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve?
• Do I really believe in the flood of the earth and the salvation of Noah, his wife, his sons and daughters-in-law?
• Do I really believe that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, was crucified, died, buried, raised from the dead on the third day and ascended into heaven?

If I answer these questions with a “yes,” then I am called, led and directed to read and interpret the Bible and apply it to life’s challenges in light of these beliefs.

However, if I answer these questions with a “no,”  “I am not sure,”  “I believe some but not all these things” and/or “I believe that the Bible is composed partly of legend, myth and allegory,” then I am called, led and directed to read and interpret the Bible and apply it to life’s challenges in light of these beliefs.

The interpretive divide calls pastors to examine themselves and their ministries in light of their innermost theological understandings and biases. In his article, Smillie chastised a colleague for not revealing to his congregants, through his preaching and teaching, his understandings, beliefs and biases with respect to the book of Jonah.  He chastised his colleague for having a public/preaching theology with respect to the book of Jonah and a private theology which differs from the former. He calls pastors to preach and teach in a way which reveals what they truly believe about any text. 

While Rev. Smillie and I are on different sides of the interpretive divide, I believe he is right on the mark. The stand one takes on issues becomes determinative of how one is received in circles of the church and how one’s actions are understood and interpreted. It becomes increasingly difficult to treat someone with an opposing view as a brother or sister in Christ.  Pastors and parishioners must be more open and transparent about what they believe. Most parishioners do not feel confident and/or qualified enough to confront their pastor for the purpose of discerning the pastor’s stand on divisive issues that face the congregation or the denomination. Speculation and the rumor mill most often provide the answer. If the pastor’s beliefs and theology with respect to a divisive issue are revealed, congregants with a differing view often experience disappointment, bewilderment and even betrayal. They may act out their sense of disappointment and betrayal and undertake actions which may be perceived as undermining, or may undermine, the pastor’s ministry.   The pastor also may feel disappointed, bewildered and even betrayed by the congregants with differing views.  The pulpit can become the Pastor’s forum for solidifying his/her position. In either case, conflict will reign supreme in the congregation by reason of the failure of the pastor and congregation to share with candor their respective understanding of and interpretation of the Bible.   

Those on both sides of the interpretive divide claim divine guidance, specifically by and through the work of the Holy Spirit. However, I believe that this interpretive divide begs a fundamental question, specifically, whether the Holy Spirit is so divided? Does the Holy Spirit guide some Christians to become literalist/fundamentalists and the same Spirit guide some Christians to become historical critical theologians? How can one answer that question without calling judgment on one another and ultimately upon oneself? I believe that it is impossible. Jesus did say that “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” [Mark 3:25] The 2007 national convention demonstrated that we are a denomination divided against itself and that members of congregations are divided against themselves. These divisions cannot and will not be decided by votes on resolutions. These divisions are caused by different Biblical world views.

One has to ask the question whether the continued health and vitality of our denomination can be recovered and sustained in light of the deep divisions we face. One has to ask whether the continued debate on the interpretive divide is healthy or if it leads to entrenchment. By way of example, Smillie made the following statement, “Christians continue to hear the word of God ignorantly. They go on believing in clay-made man, a floating zoo, an amphibious footed Jesus, a son of God who demonstrated his divinity as a home brew artist by turning water into wine and topped with an ascension that looks like a Cape Kennedy blastoff.” As a conservative Christian, I find these statements most egregious and insulting. I believe that these statements not only poke fun at Jesus, His divinity and His miracles, including His ascension into heaven, they also make me out to be a rube for believing these things about creation and Jesus. I am equally sure that statements I have made condemning the liberal, historical critical method of interpreting the Bible have produced an equal and opposite reaction among my colleagues who subscribe to that theology.  Diatribe as described and quoted above is aimed at eroding the foundation of the other side’s interpretive paradigm, thereby widening, not narrowing, the gap between the parties. Regardless of the side of the interpretive divide you are on, the effect of demeaning statements, congregations leaving, and discipline of members is the same: to widen the gap.
 
If you, like me, believe that there are two mutually exclusive theologies at work in the ELCIC and are labeled a fundamentalist/literalist, we have three options:

• Capitulation: Capitulate to the decision of the majority; that is, if the delegates of a National and/or Synodical convention delegate the right to bless/marry same gender couples to congregations, accept this decision and hope it will not become a reality in your congregation.  Capitulation carries with it the obligation of silence when the majority has spoken. One may speak vociferously during the debate leading up to the vote; however, once the vote is taken one must abide by it.

• Confrontation: Continue to confront the leadership of our denomination, that is, to speak, write and vote against any motion, written statement or program put forward which one believes undermines the way Holy Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions or the current teachings of the church are interpreted.  This would certainly mean the continuation of a cycle of action and reaction between the various governing bodies of the church and the individuals and groups who confront the leadership. Confrontation always carries the risk of exposure to discipline, which could include being stricken from the roster of clergy for pastors and exclusion from membership for lay people.

• Separation: Individuals and congregations may choose to separate from the ELCIC and align themselves with other Lutheran bodies or other church bodies. This option has many risks attendant to it. Congregations who contemplate separation may speak with one voice on the issue of separation from the ELCIC and at the same time experience deep division over where to go, that is, with which church body the congregation is to align itself. Any realignment will have financial consequences, pension funds will have to be adjusted and shifted and deficits in pension funds contributed to. Constitutions and bylaws would have to be amended or rewritten. Realignment with a new body may change congregational polity, the structure or leadership of the congregation and worship practices within a congregation.  All of these factors must be taken into consideration and analyzed. But most importantly, the reason for withdrawal must be looked at with great candor. God does not want any individual or congregation to act out of fear of the leadership of a congregation, a synod or the national church. Separation should be based upon a belief that: (a) an individual or congregation cannot capitulate to motions and resolutions brought forward at national or synodical conventions or congregational meetings which conflict with an individual or congregational belief with respect to the authority of Scripture and how Scripture is interpreted and the blessing of same gender couples; and (b) the individual or congregation believes that continued confrontation with the leadership of a congregation, synod or national church is not conducive to the spiritual health of the individual or the congregation or the broader church.  

 
I want to conclude with these words from the Apostle Paul:

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. [2 Corinthians 13:5-6]

Paul spoke these words to the members of the church at Corinth. They had been influenced by the teachings of men Paul called “super apostles.” As a result, some Corinthians began to doubt Paul and his teachings.  Paul challenged the Corinthians to test their faith, that is, to go back to what Paul had taught them about Jesus, and what His death and resurrection meant for them in this life and the next. Paul’s promise was that if they embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ that he had preached to them and all his teachings, they would come to realize that Jesus was in them and was in Paul. Paul calls the church to this task today. Paul calls you and I to test ourselves to see if we are in the faith.     
    
These are difficult times we live in. Some will say that the blessing of same gender couples is just another step in a progression of continued freedom in the church and something the church must simply “get through” and then “get on with ministry.” I say that the blessing of same gender couples is a watershed event in the life of the church through which God is placing our denomination at a “Y” in the road. The direction one takes at this fork in the road is determined by one’s understanding of the authority of Scripture and in how it is interpreted and the belief that the blessing of same gender couples calls authority and interpretation of Scripture into question. This is a decision that individuals and congregations must make, following prayer, study and supplication. The time is now.  May our Triune God bless your testing.

In Christ,

Pastor Ed Skutshek 

© Grace Lutheran Church Kelowna 2006
Grace Lutheran Church is a member congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada