Christianity Today shows some love to Lutheran "dissidents"

Which is not at all surprising.  David Neff, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, looks kindly upon the Lutheran CORE convocation which recently gave us the North American Lutheran Church.  He attended the gathering and offers snippets from various convocation speeches to make the point that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is oh-so-far from scripture and is made up of gnostic heretics besides.

He began with a quote from Luther--"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I cannot and will not retract." 

Unfortunately, he got it wrong.  The actual quote does not refer to "plain and clear reasons and arguments."  Most translations render this simply "plain reason."  In any case, Neff recalls Luther's accent on scripture, but plainly ignores Luther's emphasis on reason.

When the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America passed its social statement on sexuality last summer, approving of gay unions and gay clergy, it made no effort appeal to Scripture at all. This frustrated and angered conservative Lutherans, who would have disagreed with the statement's teaching even if the document had appealed to scriptural authority. But to ignore Scripture entirely? How un-Lutheran.

"Made no effort to appeal to Scripture at all"?  Neff apparently didn't actually read the statement on sexuality, Human Sexuality:  Gift and Trust, to which he links.  I tried to count the number of scriptural references in it and already had 25 listed before I was half way through the first chapter.  Neff is simply wrong.

Still, even though Neff doesn't believe that the document has scriptural support (though it does), it wouldn't have mattered anyway since "conservative Lutherans...would have disagreed" with it even if it did. 

In other words, Neff makes a rather glaring admission:  "conservative Lutherans" would not have been swayed by a scriptural argument.  (The journalist, Michael Kinsley, defines a "gaffe" as when someone "tells the truth by accident.")

From there, Neff summarizes the speeches of the usual suspects--Carl Braaten, Robert Jenson, Paul Hinlicky, Robert Benne, and others.  Braaten played the "gnostic card," which is surely the most hackneyed accusation in modern Christianity.  In virtually every theological discussion, someone gets labelled a "gnostic," even though there isn't one person in a hundred who knows much about what gnosticism is.

Coming in a close second is the label of "antinomian," which comes from a Greek word which means "against law."  As if passing the baton in this relay of sanctimony, it was left to Paul Hinlicky to accuse the ELCA of being "antinomian."  We've tossed out "the law," doncha know.  (I'm reminded of a Catholic priest friend of mine who once said, "I've known a lot of people who love God, and I know a lot of people who love God's law.  You know the funny thing?  They are rarely the same people.")

Both Braaten and Hinlicky lamented the decline of "theological authority."  Braaten plumps for something he describes as "conciliar consensus of the apostles' authorized successors," by which he apparently means bishops--(this has worked so well for Rome). 

Hinlicky locates this authority in the "power of the keys," which means pastors and heirarchy.  In other words, people cannot be trusted to think on their own.  This would seem to contradict Jesus who once asked the people, "Why don't you decide for yourselves what is right?" (Lk 12:57)  Neff made this point again in his summary:

The crisis (of authority) resulted from an abandonment of the combined authority of canon, creed, and church—or less alliteratively, Scripture, a normative set of teaching that guide scriptural interpretation, and authorized leaders charged with faithfully handing on the faith.

Except that the ELCA did not abandon scripture, as can be plainly seen in the human sexuality document.  The ELCA did not abandon "creed" since there is nothing in any of the creeds concerning homosexuality.  Actually, we didn't even really abandon our "authorized leaders";  the majority of them supported the document.

We did, however, abandon "the way we've always done things" in regard to rostering of partnered gay pastors, and we did it both in light of scripture and reason. 

  

Comments

[gs]

"Like"
It is discouraging and freeing to listen and read about the folks who will not be convinced of anything they don't already believe... the so-called "flat-earth" folks and their ilk. In some ways it's such a non issue for the ELCA and in other ways money is tight for lots of reasons (wait for the latest ELCA cuts). Freeing b/c we don't have to bend to the crap they proclaim as theology or Bible study. I enjoy reading your "blog" summaries and the crap being peddled as arguments against the ELCA. I also like the gaffe definition. Thanks.

[John Petty]

We'll take a hit, but the ELCA will be better off in the long run.

Yes, if Michael Kinsley is not known for anything else, and he is, I do appreciate his definition of "gaffe."

[Dave N]

I was actually very taken aback by the CT article. I remember CT (admittedly from a long time ago) as being conservative, and sometimes tough on liberal theology, but reasonably fair nonetheless. I even thought Ted Olsen's CT review of the 2009 ELCA actions from Aug'09 was balanced. But the opening sections of this piece by David Neff are totally off the wall. The "no effort to appeal to Scripture at all" part was particularly infuriating, not only because those were Neff's own words, and not only because they were untrue, but because they were spectacularly untrue. When I think of all the ELCA Biblical studies that went on the past few years, all the documents with extensive scriptural references that were produced (many available via the very link that appears in the CT article), all the effort that went into using those documents as resources for discussions at the congregational level, debates regarding those documents at Synodical and Churchwide assemblies over a period of years ... how all that fed into the development and passage of the Social Statement ... Neff's claim is all the more absurd. And then there's Braaten's claims that we "sneer" at scripture as our guide to faith and practice, in part because of anti-Semitism and the Bible being a Jewish book and all. It's just very bizarre and revolting. I had hoped L-CORE would get past using misinformation and character attacks to build itself up, and I never realized how far CT had gone down that path to begin with. Oh well.

[John Petty]

Couldn't agree more Dave. Thanks for your visit.