The following is a rather long response/comment within a
thread on Facebook within the closed ELCA discussion group. For those encountering this on my blog, you
may be able to get enough context clues, and using the endnotes read some of
the context for yourself. That said,
while “closed” by Facebook lexicon, the group is essentially anyone that wants
to talk about the ELCA, Lutheranism, and so forth. Many non-Lutherans are on, as well as many
clergy, lay people and workers from the ELCA and other Lutheran churches.
A long thread already, I know, but I want to get back to
several points made in the blog post and by Frank Reichert as this conversation
has developed.
First the Mark Surburg Blog Post:
Pr. Mark Surburg, begins his exegesis the wrong way.[i] He states “[t]he first three chapters of
Genesis lay the foundation for understanding everything that follows in the
Bible.”[ii] While I concur fully that the Pentateuch
provides for us key context for the salvation history that is about to be laid
before us in Holy Scripture, the foundation, the cornerstone, is Christ. We as Christians must and have to look at the
scriptures through the lens of the cross and Christ. Pr. Dr. Carl Braaten, an esteemed theologian
in his own right, offers in “Principles of Lutheran Theology” that “Luther’s decisive
break with medieval theology rests on this massive simplification of the
manifold character of scripture: the
heart of Scripture is the promise of the gospel that is brought to expression
in the Christ event. Its authority is
not of a juridical kind; it is not a book of legal doctrines, inerrant reports,
or devotional material. The Scriptures
convey the life giving word of salvation in Christ to those who accept it
through faith alone.”[iii] It is from Christ and through Christ and his
sacrifice on the cross that we, as people in his death and resurrection, need
to look at the entirety of scripture.
“Christ is our cornerstone”, the famous hymn proclaims, but not Surburg
in this post.
Pr. Mark then rightly speaks about the union that is found
in Adam and Eve, the initial, if not penultimate, example of marriage (that
being between Christ and his Church; us the people of God) concluding with the
most famous of the provisions, found in Genesis 2:24 (“For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will
become one flesh.”[iv]). He then goes on to cite provisions of the
holiness code found in Leviticus and aides in our biblical understanding of the
situation Lot had before the gates of Sodom.
He offers, “More importantly for our topic, we know that when Jews
around the time of Jesus talked about the events at Sodom, they focused on
homosexuality as being the main issue.”[v] He uses this foil, then, to offer[vi]
much context on Jewish commentary of Christ’s time. He cites extensively from Josephus, who
provides much commentary on the derision of the Gentiles and the history of
homosexuality from a Judeo-Greco perspective.
Pr. Mark then turns to Philo (interestingly, now, using Hellenistic
justification, instead of Judaic) to show that not only had the Jews turn
against, and held against homosexuality, but so had the Greeks. All of this is well and good, but it misses
Christ, until, that is, he comes to Christ speaking about divorce, to whit he
cites Matthew 19:3-6, using that as his concluding proof that man and woman are
the only union justified by Jesus.
I am not here to defend definitions of marriage, per se, but
I am here to refute the sentiment that Pr. Surburg has “debunk[ed] yet another
myth”[vii]
that “[b]ecause Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality, the conclusion is drawn
that it therefore must have been acceptable to him.” Frank Reichert cites Pr. Mark, to this
end: “The argument is made that
homosexuality and same sex marriage are morally acceptable because Jesus didn't
say they are wrong. However a knowledge
of the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism quickly demonstrates how absurd
this argument is.”[viii] If the defense of ostracizing LGBTQ is held
on the grounds of the knowledge and the validity of the “Old Testament and
Second Temple Judaism” (which, even if the quote by Frank is not attributable
to Pr. Mark, is the center of Mark’s thesis), then I have good, Gospel, news,
for “[t]he curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.”[ix] Such a thesis is more than worn bare by the
death and resurrection of Christ. Here
is the striking fact of the cross: it
stabs deep into the heart of the Judaic holiness code and justifies the
unholy. It does confront the woman at
the well, but instead of condemning, shunning and ostracizing, calls her to
witness and sin no more.[x] The cross spats at the scholar of the law and
holds up the Samaritan as the true witness of salvation.[xi] Christ sees the adulterous woman and calls
the Pharisees and Sadducees to “cast the first stone” if they are blameless.[xii] He even is anointed by a “sinful woman” on
his way to the Cross as witness that it is not within human eyes to judge the
merits of salvation.[xiii] All of these are to say that we cannot fully
know the mind of Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit as we only have what is
recorded in Scripture. Assuredly,
however, the witness of the Christian Testament is not limited to how Jews,
Hellenes and how like-minded philosophers of the day felt about the Old
Testament of Moses and the Hebraic witness.[xiv] Rather our call as Christians is to how
Christ, and those that saw, knew, and felt him, acted and professed. These said, that in Christ we are “all are
sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus for all of who are baptized into
Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There are neither Jew nor Geek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you
are all one in Christ Jesus.”[xv] It may have taken the Council of Jerusalem to
fully endorse this, but it was clearly the will of the Spirit that spoke to
them in this regard. Let us therefore,
acknowledge that Pr. Surburg has not proven his case here.
Second to Frank:
You offer: “It wasn't
my purpose to toss a grenade into the room. I am surprised that some here might
agree with you, that I did that. I
posted it for discussion purposes only on an issue that is still ongoing and
active here, and nothing I did was intended otherwise. smile emoticon” Let me start with Luther’s explanation to the
eight commandment. “Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy neighbor.
What does this mean?
Answer[:] We should fear and love
God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor,
but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on
everything.” [xvi] I take seriously this confession and
admonition of Luther. I believe that
both you and Pastor Mark come from a place of bound conscious. And as Luther cited at Worms, it is not
healthy or sane for you to go against your conscious. That said, Luther offered that if “scripture
and plain reason” could convince him, he would no longer be so bound, but could
form a conscious that understood, and even endorsed a different point of view
than his current entrapped moral formation allowed. To that end, I highly doubt that you did not
seek a reaction from the statements that were made and your continued
participation only cements that perception.
In your comments, for instance, you ask “Are you offended by
sound Biblical scholarship?” Such
presumes your opponents do not take scripture seriously. As I hope I have shown, just check the endnotes, I certainly do. Yes, the
witness of the Old Testament provides many strictures on behavior, but Christ
and his witnesses, even Paul, made it clear it was not the “mark of
circumcision” that made and makes us Holy, but our wearing Christ that made us
Holy.[xvii] So, no sir, I am not and cannot be offended
by “sound Biblical scholarship.” Rather,
I feel redeemed, justified and fully supported by the witness of Christ, the
living word, and the witness of Scripture as our partial glimpse into the mind
of the Almighty.
Frank, you offer, “[h]owever, Holy Scripture doesn't reveal
everything that Jesus spoke or did. For
example, it never discusses such things as Jesus going to the bathroom to
"relieve himself" although scripture reveals He ate and drank. He is fully man and fully God, so we assume he
did the former.”[xviii] Succinctly, I do not assume anything, but
Christ crucified, resurrected, and redeemed.
Christ, for certain, did relieve himself, but the evangelists make it
clear he did much, much, more. One has
to ask oneself in this inquiry, what did Christ focus on? The temple rules? The meritocracy of purity established by the
Levitical and Hebraic codes? No, rather,
he focused on the soul, the heart and the salvation of all of human kind. You’re correct in saying that not every part
of Christ’s life was recorded or revealed to us in scripture (perhaps that is
why one needs a rubric to understand and apply it?). But this doesn’t mean that he didn’t express
his core commandments to “Love God with all your heart and mind and soul, and
to Love one another as I have loved you.”[xix] At some point, just like with the two thieves
at the cross, this means that the unworthy are justified.[xx] It means that God is phenomenally unfair, he
forgives everyone.[xxi] And it means one has to assume what is
unwritten in scripture is more about Gospel than about judgement.[xxii]
Frank you wrote that, “Pr. Surburg’s stellar scholarship
from a Biblical and Confessional Lutheran perspective, and believe’ such voices
deserve a seat at the table on various discussions in a pan-Lutheran setting.” [xxiii] You go on to say, “I mentioned a pan-Lutheran
discussion (table). Pr. Surburg speaks
to a much wider audience than LCMS obviously. I've already gone far beyond what should be
expected of me insofar as why I believe the ‘table’ should large enough as not
to exclude Confessional Lutheran theologians.”[xxiv] And finally you profess, “But Church doctrine
and practice is obviously something that Confessional Lutheran members in the
ELCA are not so happy with. Unfortunately
too, many who have already bailed out of the ELCA were coerced into doing so;
and I know that first hand.”[xxv]
Let me offer unequivocally that I am 100% a confessional
Lutheran. As such I am more than willing
to “keep the Mass”[xxvi]
and decidedly biblical. Thus I admonish
you to be careful of the cape upon which you wrap yourself.[xxvii] I say this because I am not too certain you
can or should speak for “Confessional Lutherans” in so much as I am uncertain
what Lutheran confession you are pointing to as the support of the positions
outlined by Pastor Surburg. Not once did
he provide a reference to the Book of Concord or its contents. Not once did he speak to or from a principle
of Lutheran theology or perspective, other than to say that he is a LCMS
minister and thus it is a Lutheran speaking/writing from his personal
perspective/conscious. If candidly
evaluated for its theology, the whole line of his argument is fundamentalist
Christianity and strongly “Pharisetic.”[xxviii] Be that as it may, I concur with you that
everyone that takes on the name Lutheran should be able to speak in Lutheran
circles. Such “pan-Lutheranism”,
however, is never simply a matter of the American expression thereof. Your use of the term “pan-Lutheran” is
clearly used to indicate a spectrum of ELCA-LCMS-WELS-NALC-Lutheran
Brotherhood-etc. Pan-Lutheran, however,
also needs to include the Church of Sweden, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
Namibia, etc., etc. Do those voices not
also need to be heard? Are they at the
table you describe? Because, I am
certain, and know this well, that the interpretations of scripture on the topic
being discussed here varies across the complexity of the Lutheran witness the
world round. I am saddened that there
has been exclusion to varied points of view and announcements of bigotry being
made by those that support LGBTQ marriage.
But in that sadness I am cognoscente that people on all sides are
holding true to their perspective and conscious on the matter, and am careful
not to imbue on myself or them labels of being any more or less confessional or
Lutheran in my/their own understanding.
Closing remark:
I began this post on Wednesday evening as the conversation
spun up, and finished most of the above yesterday (23 July 2015) morning. I was going to keep it as a private
reflection, but given the continued level of activity in the thread, I felt it
appropriate to share at this juncture.
To conclude, I want to offer that I am gravely concerned that in our
church and in our public debates relating to religion and Christian morality,
all sides are paramount guilty of eisegesis; a sin that I myself fall into from
time to time. I also know that how we communicate
is far removed from how scripture was transmitted and even the way things were
passed along in the 16th century.
The above refutation is less about “setting things straight” and more a
warning that we need to be careful in our reproof and in our discussions within
and without the church to not lose sight of the centrality of our faith,
Christ, Christ Crucified, and Christ risen again. Our Lutheran witness is that we are justified
by faith, a faith given to us by God’s grace, which we are assured of thanks to
the Living Word in Christ. Whether it is
this issue, or any other issue, we need to always return again to the cross and
start there before we speak, think, and do.
The spirit of this thread was not premised on that, it was premised on a
pre-conception of what was supposedly known as true. The reality is that the truth is Christ[xxix],
and we are wisely told that we can never fully understand God[xxx],
so we need to start from a position of unknowing and learn, listen, and pray
that we can hear the “still small voice”[xxxi]
of our Lord’s instructions to us.
[i] And candidly, it seems
that he may be treading more into eisegesis.
[ii] Surburg’s Blog, http://surburg.blogspot.com/2015/07/marks-thoughts-jesus-didnt-say.html
[iii] Braaten, Carl,
“Principles of Lutheran Theology”, pp. 3
[iv] NIV
[v] Surburg’s Blog, http://surburg.blogspot.com/2015/07/marks-thoughts-jesus-didnt-say.html
[vi] Ironically, he doesn’t
offer the same on Genesis and it relationship to Mid-East mythology and oral
tradition
[vii] Frank Reichert, post on
Facebook to the ELCA Group, 22 July 2015
[viii] Cited as a quotation by
Pastor Mark Surburg by Frank Reichert, in post on Facebook to the ELCA Group,
22 July 2015; it is noted I cannot find this as a quote of Pr. Surburg in a
fairly simple search of his blog or through Google.
[ix] Mark 15:38, NIV
[x] John 4:4-26
[xi] Luke 10:25-37
[xii] John 8:1-11
[xiii] Luke 7:36-50, also Mark
14:3-9, John 12:1-8, Matthew 18:23-34
[xiv] Saul, renamed Paul, knew
this and knew that our justification is found in another place. Namely, he offers in Galatians that “All who
rely on observing the law are under a curse, …”
Gal 3:10, NIV
[xv] Galatians 3:26-28, NIV
[xvi] Luther’s Small
Catechism, http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#tencommandments
[xvii] 1 Corinthians 7:19
[xviii] Frank Reichert, post
on Facebook to the ELCA Group, 22 July 2015
[xix] Mark 12:30-31
[xx] Cf. Luke.
[xxi] Cf. John 3:17
[xxii] Cf. Romans 15:4 and The
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article XI: Election, “However, any interpretation of
Scripture that weakens or removes our hope and encouragement is certainly
contrary to the will and intent of the Holy Spirit.”
[xxiii] Frank Reichert, post
on Facebook to the ELCA Group, 22 July 2015
[xxiv] Ibid
[xxv] Ibid
[xxvi] Cf. Augsburg Confession
[xxvii] After all, us
Confessional Lutherans have quite a bit of explaining to do on the Holocaust
and the failure to challenge the Nazi regime; thankfully we have a superior
witness such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (and his “Confessing Church”) to point to
in reply.
[xxviii] One has to be aware
that what is thought of as “Lutheran” being uttered by a person who claims
membership in the church, may or may not be in keeping with scripture, church doctrine,
Lutheran theology, and/or our confessions. American Lutherans forget how much “public
Christianity” has affected our viewpoints and thoughts about what our teachings
are. Likewise, given the general cross-pollination
within Protestant churches in America coupled with a general lack of adult
catechesis, there are certain to be some decidedly non-Lutheran doctrines and
practices at play in any congregational setting and even by the Pastor. I can’t help but think that is very much at
play in these discussions and in the post by Pastor Surburg.
[xxix] “I am the way, the
truth, and the life” John 14:6
[xxx] 1 Corinthians 2:16
[xxxi] 1 Kings 19:11-18
No comments:
Post a Comment