February 26, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I overheard some dear parishioners last week chuckling about what they planned to “give up” for Lent. The list included succotash, sky-diving, etc. Very sacrificial. On the other extreme, one person is giving up all sweets except natural fruit. Sweet.

Is this what we ought to do in order to prepare to celebrate Easter (one popular explanation of why Lent is kept)? Does this imitate the Christ who went into the wilderness for forty days to wrestle with demons? (His own, or The demon?)

One Holy Week years ago in seminary, I tried to fast just from the close of Maundy Thursday’s evening service until Easter morning. It didn’t work. I cheated, because I also had a huge amount of work to do to be ready for the liturgical observances in the seminary chapel for the Triduum Sacrum.

Not my seminary community, but you can read about their Triduum Sacrum here.

I am more of the mind now to make light of giving up things. Especially if they are things to which I fully intend to return after the season of Lent. If Jesus struggled with the Devil in the wilderness for 40 days, it is clear that he came to find the spiritual strength to forego power and wealth, etc., forever. In token of that, giving up chocolate for Lent seems pointless and trivial.

(But for fun, you may want to check out this: “Dear Jesus, in Honor of Your Death, I’m Giving up Facebook…for 40 Days.”) This unidentified blogger is irreverent but insightful. Wish I knew who he is.

Here are some suggestions, if you want:

• Give up something you won’t go back to on Easter Sunday. Like try giving up some money for a worthy cause. (Your church can sure use it.) The cause or church you give it to in fact will use it, so there’s no chance you will get it back. Thus it’s a real sacrifice. Sacrifice is very different from postponed pleasure.
• Try taking something on for Lent instead of giving something up. Take on a discipline which requires effort or commitment from you. Examples: write letters to people you have meant to stay in touch with. Visit people who are in the hospital.  Pray five times daily like the Muslims. Read something on paper rather than on the screen. Plant more vegetables than you can ever eat with a clear plan to give away your surplus. Feed the hungry. Visit the homeless.  Eat your vegetables.
• Test out a self-discipline which is really hard, and actually resist bragging about it. Examples: promise yourself not to be cynical, resentful, or testy for 40 days. See how long it takes for friends and family to notice a change in your behavior.
• Write down your resolves and disciplines and seal them in an envelope dated for Easter Monday. Put in the bottom of your sock drawer. The point? To see if come April 13 you have completely forgotten the self-discipline you had selected now.

Posted in Faith, Living by Grace, Spirituality | Print | No Comments »

February 19, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

The ELCA released the final Draft Sexuality Statement today, called “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” but it doesn’t contain much that is new. This Draft of a social teaching was authorized in 2001, and has been painful in its formation. This coming summer in Minneapolis, the voting members of the ELCA will have the last word on the draft and probably adopt it at the official policy of the churchbody. In the meantime, the Council of Bishops and others will be able to take a crack at it.

You can download the documents here.

What is new is the accompanying document – recommendations about what to do with gay/ lesbian partnered clergy or candidates for ministry. On first reading, it appears to be the “half a loaf” solution to a problem that vexes church denominations: each Synod can decide for itself, whether to accept, tolerate or ban gay clergy.

Right now, that probably means that large metropolitan areas with more liberal congregations and bishops will continue to accept sexual minority clergy, but more suburban and rural areas will not.

But the half loaf solution is almost all wrong. Instead of adopting a policy of “local option” – leaving it to each congregation to decide if it accepts or hates the thought of a homosexual, bisexual or transgender pastor– or in the alternative, liberalizing the policy from the top down, this “half loaf” solution puts the decision at the synod level.

Geographic synods do have a lot to say about the people who serve as pastors in their jurisdiction. A powerful bishop can either open doors in a parish church, or welcome in a pastor or pastoral candidate in the effort to place him or her in a congregation, or virtually block any pastor from serving or being considered for a call.

The whole reason the Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries came into existence more than a decade ago was to get around these blockades which synodical bishops have the authority to set up. A network of open-minded congregations has developed and is expanding which will consider an LGBT candidate (otherwise fully-qualified by professional and spiritual measures). Fear of discipline by the synodical bishops have kept many congregations from being open-minded about LGBTQ clergy, and literally forced individuals who are lesbian or gay to remain very closeted, which is amazing in this day and age when coming out as a sexual minority is moving forward in every other sector or our society.

But the “half loaf” recommendations, by lodging this partial liberality at the synod level —if approved in August by the ELCA’s Assembly—almost guarantees the politicizing of every decision at the synod level. When a bishop is elected, or any member of the Synod Council is elected, you can bet that people will be pressing them to reveal where they stand on homosexual clergy.  Instead of either slamming the door or opening it wide to fly a rainbow flag, the door will flop open or closed depending on who gets elected.  Since one or another of these positions are up for election every year, it means that every annual Synod assembly may become a time to re-open the debate over LGBT clergy, like re-opening a wound over and over.

We aren’t privy to the discussions of the national committee, chaired by Rev. Peter Strommen, that drafted these recommendations. All we can tell is the effect of their discussions, and the effect is to shove the homophobic policy down to a regional level as if this will get homosexuality off of the priority list at the national level. Folks, it is not that simple.  You will come to regret it.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, "The Closet", LGBT Christian, Coming Out, Ministry, ELCA | Print | No Comments »