When seminary professors rant

"In its August assembly in Minneapolis, going by the definition set down in Augustana VII, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America effectively declared that it is no longer a church," so begins the rant of James Nestingen, retired seminary professor at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN.

For those uninitiated in the arcane world of Lutheran symbolics, "Augustana VII" refers to the seventh article of the Augsburg Confession, which states, "The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered."  (For a critique of Nestingen's interpretation of Augustana VII, see remarks here.)

Somehow, by allowing homosexual pastors in monogamous relationships to be pastors, the ELCA "has redefined the Word of God," says Nestingen.  (That is, they have taken a position with which he disagrees.)  This was brought on by the alleged "elitists"--generally, the leaders of the ELCA and the theologians--who are "superior, either intellectually or politically" and have used their intellectual wiles to hijack the Bible.  Here he goes:

That is how theologians and church leaders could dismiss as unclear biblical passages that produced a two thousand year old, all but universal consensus concerning homosexual practice. This consensus continues to hold with force among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and most Protestant Churches, and because it is biblical, isn’t subject to change. But it no longer holds in the ELCA. In a naked power play by the privileged—the few allowed some actual voice in the proceedings—this mighty consensus fell to a bogus, prefabricated ambiguity crafted to disallow it.

If you added together every Bible passage purportedly dealing with homosexuality, you'd have one short paragraph.  (Contrast that with 4000 passages dealing with the poor and poverty.)  There is Leviticus, of course, which proclaims homosexuality an "abomination," but which also says you can't eat shrimp or touch the skin of a dead pig.  Other than that, you have a few passages in Paul in which homosexuality is said to be mentioned, although the two words employed--arsenokoitai and malakoi--are uncertain as to meaning.*

Earlier this year, I engaged a group of strongly conservative Lutheran pastors and asked them to make the Biblical case against homosexuality.  Generally, they did not mention the half dozen or so passages where homosexuality is allegedly mentioned.  Instead, they opted for Genesis 2:  "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."  This, they said, is the Biblical support for marriage as a strictly heterosexual endeavor.

First of all, the word "marriage" does not appear in that text.  (One should be careful about invoking a "Biblical view of marriage."  In the ancient middle east, the wife was considered to be the man's property.)  Secondly, even if God did bless heterosexual procreation--"be fruitful and multiply"--that does not necessarily mean that all other unions are prohibited.  Nestingen assumes a Biblical case that support his view when there isn't one.

He invokes tradition, of course, and there he has a point.  It is quite true that the Christian tradition has, and in many cases, still does condemn homosexuality.  While tradition is important, and should be given due respect and consideration, tradition is not always right.  Tradition also supported slavery, political marriages, the Inquisition, and the subjugation of Indians, Cathars, and protestants!  In any case, an argument solely resting on tradition is one that boils down to this:  "We've always done it that way."

But even that is not Nestingen's case.  No, it was a "naked power play by the privileged"--apparently, the leaders and theologians of the ELCA--who pulled the wool over peoples' eyes through "prefabricated ambiguity."  These privileged few were the only ones allowed to have "actual voice in the proceedings," Nestingen alleges. 

Eighth commandment alert!  In fact, the process leading to the change was, in actuality, the most open and democratic ever attempted by any church body on any question.  Opinions were solicited from everyone who wanted to make one.  Open meetings were held across the country.  At the assembly itself, each side had equal time in the debate.  For Nestingen to allege that only the so-called "privileged" had "actual voice" is flat wrong, and worse, he goes on and on about "power mongering" and those mysterious and nefarious "elites" who use "all available means to manipulate the outcome."

Having proclaimed his interpretation as the only one that counts, he then, strangely, says that "a variety of interpretations are possible," and goes on to laud the Roman Catholic Church for acting as a "check" and "controlling the range of interpretation."  (Listen closely and you might hear Luther spinning in his grave.)

 Nestingen has never really cared for the ELCA.  He opposed the merger in 1987.  In this piece, he complains that the election processes tend to favor "the manageable, those eager to please."  This inventive complaint, presented without evidence, is a direct slam against the laypeople who were elected as voting members to the churchwide assembly.  If I were one of them, I'd be mightily offended.

Where to stop?  Nestingen goes on to accuse national officials of stage managing the assemblies while the bishops "stand by in silence."  "Gay advocates freely use the microphones, those who are opposed remain conspicuously silent," which, again, is flatly untrue.  One could go on and on, but where does the rubber finally meet the road?  Is there a point to this bombast?

He seems to favor cutting off the money.  "Already, congregations all over the ELCA have been cutting out all benevolence.  This represents a first and minimal step."  Then, considering that the national and synod-level expressions of the church have "betrayed it," he suggests staying in your congregation, if it's a "faithful" one, i.e. one that agrees with him.  You'd better be checking this out very closely, however, and make a "critical assessment" of your pastor and your congregation's leadership.

All of us have written something in the heat of the moment that, upon further reflection, we come to realize is not quite the views or the attitude we want to convey.  Nestingen's bluster might fit into that category, except that one gets the distinct impression that, after reflection, he went ahead with it anyway, as if to say, "Damn the bishops, the leaders, the "elites," the "privileged"!  Full harangue ahead!"

    

*Then, you also have Romans 1:26-27:  "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." 

The context makes clear that such behavior is a result of idolatry.  Some people had apparently left the church and converted to paganism--"they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles" (Rom 1:23).  Because they went pagan, "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves" (Rom 1:24).  The main sin is idolatry, from which allegedly flows "degrading passions."  (Is this true?  Most of the "degrading passions" I read about in the newspaper are committed by allegedly good Christians.)

In any case, right after this, Paul also encourages people not to judge:  "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things (Rom 2:1)."  In all the commentary I've read on both sides of the issue, I've yet to see this verse mentioned.

    

Comments

[toujoursdan]

It sounds like he took a play from the Anglican schismatics. According to them we ceased to be a church once Gene Robinson was elected.

[toujoursdan]

But it no longer holds in the ELCA. In a naked power play by the privileged—the few allowed some actual voice in the proceedings—this mighty consensus fell to a bogus, prefabricated ambiguity crafted to disallow it.

I should also add that the same abuse was hurled toward our General Convention, as if they were some body that engaged in a conspiracy and "imposed" new doctrine on the little people, instead of represented them. It reminds me a bit of of some of the teabaggers rants over the 2008 Election who can't come to grips with the reality that the ground has shifted underneath them.

Regarding the Romans 1:26-27 passage, the early Christians (Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Anastasios) used it to condemn non-procreative heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex. Christianity's biggest pagan rival at the time was the Attis/Cybele cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele) whose most devoted male followers ritually castrated themselves, wore female clothing to transcend gender and serviced male and female clients in ecstatic ceremonies in the temples. The unnatural lusts/acts Paul mentioned may refer to genderbending sex acts rather than homosexual. See: http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html#i1

[John Petty]

Dan, thanks for the tip RE: Cybele cult. I'll check it out.

Also, have you ever noticed that the standard complaint among conservatives when they lose any election is that somehow the "elites" manipulated the vote? They can't imagine a majority that doesn't support them.

[Riz]

I used to be one of Jim's fans -- I sat at his feet for a few years in St. Paul. But when he and Forde sent out a letter to our rostered leaders, declaring that the ELCA was in "confessional crisis" because we were getting too close to the Episcopal Church and its godless love for Bishops (mostly, I thought, because Seminary Professors weren't able to push their weight around like they used to in the old ALC), I began to see him in a completely different light. Now he's at it again, claiming this "confessional crisis" business. I wonder what the back story actually is on this one...

[gs]

Get it over with and ex-communicate this nutcase!!

[John Petty]

Despite the avuncular exterior, he strikes me as mostly being mad about something.