I think I may have killed my faith in church this morning. I let my mind wander as usual during the sermon this morning (sorry PC). And I realized something: our Christian faith teaches one of the most perplexing and hard to believe concepts ever in the whole creation of the world.
It teaches:
God the (sic) Father sent Jesus Christ [God the (sic) Son] to die for the sins of humanity. That is, by becoming human and dying, Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins. However, in the Bible (Psalm 51, perhaps...or something like that) says that God does not delight in burnt offerings, but in a repentant heart. However, God needed Jesus to die to atone for our sins? And besides, it's not like God didn't want to forgive us. We are told that forgiving our sins is what delights God the most. So, why would God the Father need to kill God the Son (for he surely could have stopped it, and therefore purposefully willed it into action) to forgive us? Why could he not just simply forgive our sins. I thought it was because he needed to know we accepted the forgiveness, or wanted the forgiveness, or believed in the forgiveness, but the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure. God loves all of his creation--we are told so. All we have to do is accept God's love in order to be (and I hate this word in this context) "saved." But, if God truly loves God's creation, surely God forgives us anyway--even if we don't believe. That is the true love that we are taught God has for creation: a limitless, unconditional love.
And on top of this, I'm starting to wonder why, if God truly forgave our sins through the death of Christ do we have to (at least in the Lutheran Church) ask for forgiveness on a weekly basis?
And it's thoughts like this one that remind me that I'm not as sure as I once was that I could be a pastor.
Many blessings!
JCM
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
A Riddle for You...
Q: What is a church but not a church?
A: Any Christian church that isn't Roman Catholic!
It's interesting. Even during the Reformation, the Lutheran church was acknowledged as a church. Vatican II reaffirmed the need for ecumenism. Roman Catholics are right now engaged in on-going discussions with Lutherans about reconciliation on several fronts. Lutherans (the original protestant denomination) and Catholics have drafted, approved, accepted, signed, and celebrated the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). You'd think that after they have written and approved joint declarations on doctrine, the Roman Catholic church would be a little more accepting of other religions.
Here's my opinion: I think that Benedict XIV sees how many people are leaving the RC church (I went to a Catholic school, many of my friends are Catholic, most of them do not go to church...ever), got scared, and as has been done in the past, threatened damnation to anyone who does not belong to the club. It didn't work during the Reformation, and I don't think it will work now. People left the Church even after they were told they would be excommunicated. But to those of us who truly believe that our Church teaches it doesn't really matter what others say, we know we are redeemed through the love of Christ. A love that knew no bounds even though, seemingly, the love of his Church knows many bounds.
My prediction: I think this will have the exact opposite effect that Bennie wants. I think that there are young people who, like me, believe in their religion but also see the validity in others' religious beliefs, and the necessity for them. It is my opinion that it is more important to truly believe something than it is to truly believe Christianity. There is something beyond...I do not understand Atheists in this regard...I cannot believe that there is nothing out there. I think (having spoken to many, many people about religion...I am a religion major) that this is the general opinion of most people my age who are believers...of something.
Just in case you have no idea what I'm talking about...
ELCA Presiding Bishop Responds to Vatican Statement on Nature of the Church07-125-JB
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- In response to a document released by the Vatican July 10, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), said the statement does not appear to change the Vatican' ,resizable="1,scrollbars=1,top='+screen.height" 2+?,height="+screen.height / 2+" encImage.asp?link="3636','_blank','width='+screen.width" ELCA_News CO Scriptlib>
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- In response to a document released by the Vatican July 10, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), said the statement does not appear to change the Vatican' ,resizable="1,scrollbars=1,top='+screen.height" 2+?,height="+screen.height / 2+" encImage.asp?link="3636','_blank','width='+screen.width" ELCA_News CO Scriptlib>
A: Any Christian church that isn't Roman Catholic!
It's interesting. Even during the Reformation, the Lutheran church was acknowledged as a church. Vatican II reaffirmed the need for ecumenism. Roman Catholics are right now engaged in on-going discussions with Lutherans about reconciliation on several fronts. Lutherans (the original protestant denomination) and Catholics have drafted, approved, accepted, signed, and celebrated the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). You'd think that after they have written and approved joint declarations on doctrine, the Roman Catholic church would be a little more accepting of other religions.
Here's my opinion: I think that Benedict XIV sees how many people are leaving the RC church (I went to a Catholic school, many of my friends are Catholic, most of them do not go to church...ever), got scared, and as has been done in the past, threatened damnation to anyone who does not belong to the club. It didn't work during the Reformation, and I don't think it will work now. People left the Church even after they were told they would be excommunicated. But to those of us who truly believe that our Church teaches it doesn't really matter what others say, we know we are redeemed through the love of Christ. A love that knew no bounds even though, seemingly, the love of his Church knows many bounds.
My prediction: I think this will have the exact opposite effect that Bennie wants. I think that there are young people who, like me, believe in their religion but also see the validity in others' religious beliefs, and the necessity for them. It is my opinion that it is more important to truly believe something than it is to truly believe Christianity. There is something beyond...I do not understand Atheists in this regard...I cannot believe that there is nothing out there. I think (having spoken to many, many people about religion...I am a religion major) that this is the general opinion of most people my age who are believers...of something.
Just in case you have no idea what I'm talking about...
ELCA Presiding Bishop Responds to Vatican Statement on Nature of the Church07-125-JB
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- In response to a document released by the Vatican July 10, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), said the statement does not appear to change the Vatican' ,resizable="1,scrollbars=1,top='+screen.height" 2+?,height="+screen.height / 2+" encImage.asp?link="3636','_blank','width='+screen.width" ELCA_News CO Scriptlib>
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- In response to a document released by the Vatican July 10, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), said the statement does not appear to change the Vatican' ,resizable="1,scrollbars=1,top='+screen.height" 2+?,height="+screen.height / 2+" encImage.asp?link="3636','_blank','width='+screen.width" ELCA_News CO Scriptlib>
Friday, July 13, 2007
I'm a Member of the World's Fastest Dying Religion
The other day, I got an e-mail news update from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: the nation's largest Lutheran body and the one to which I belong):
ELCA Committee on Appeals Rules in Atlanta Discipline Case 07-123-JB
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The Committee on Appeals of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) ruled July 2 in favor of an appeal by the Rev. Ronald B. Warren, bishop of the ELCA Southeastern Synod, Atlanta, who sought removal of Bradley E. Schmeling, Atlanta, from the official clergy roster of the ELCA. The appeals committee ruled that Schmeling was to be removed immediately from the roster, upholding the determination by a disciplinary hearing committee that Schmeling was in violation of the ELCA policy regarding the sexual conduct of its pastors. Decisions of the Committee on Appeals are not made public by the ELCA churchwide organization. According to the ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions, summaries of decisions are to be reported to the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly, the church's highest legislative authority, which will be here at Navy Pier Aug. 6-11. In this case, the decision of the Committee on Appeals was released July 5 by Warren and posted on the synod's Web site, and it was released at a July 5 news conference at St. John Lutheran Church, Atlanta, the congregation Schmeling has served since 2000. In the ELCA policy document "Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the ELCA," it states: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." Warren filed formal charges in 2006 against Schmeling after Schmeling reported to Warren that he was in a committed relationship with another man, a violation of the ELCA's clergy standards. Seven members of the 12-member discipline hearing committee, which met Jan. 18-24 in Atlanta, voted to remove Schmeling from the ELCA clergy roster and stayed the effective date of his removal until Aug. 15. That committee issued its opinion Feb. 7. In separate filings in March, Warren and Schmeling both appealed the decision of the discipline hearing committee. The 12-member Committee on Appeals met here June 9-10 to consider the appeals. That committee voted 10-1, with one abstention, to remove Schmeling from the clergy roster. It voted 10-2 to reverse the discipline hearing committee's decision to stay the effective date of Schmeling's removal from the roster until Aug. 15, and it voted 10-2 to remove Schmeling from the clergy roster on July 2. The Committee on Appeals noted that the ELCA Constitution states that "the decision of the discipline hearing committee shall be final on the day it is issued by the committee," and that "nowhere in ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions is a discipline hearing committee authorized to stay its own decision." "In this regard, the Committee on Appeals determines that the effective date of Pastor Schmeling's removal from the clergy roster of the ELCA ... should have been Feb. 7, 2007," the Committee on Appeals said. The discipline hearing committee's written opinion said most of its members were concerned about certain language in ELCA clergy policy documents, and it made some specific suggestions for change. That opinion suggested synod assemblies ask the ELCA Churchwide Assembly to consider proposals for change. The Committee on Appeals said its role, as well as that of a discipline hearing committee, is to serve as a judicial body, and that legislative authority to change policies is the responsibility of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly and the ELCA Church Council, which serves as the church's board of directors. "Nothing in the ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions allows a discipline hearing committee to make any particular recommendations to the legislative bodies of this church, urging them to take a specific policy action. By doing so in this case, the discipline hearing committee exceeded the authority granted to it by the ELCA Constitution," the Committee on Appeals said.
Responses to the Appeals Committee decision In response to the decision, Warren posted a pastoral letter July 5 on the ELCA Southeastern Synod Web site. "My decision to seek Pastor Schmeling's removal from the ministry of this church was difficult because of my deep respect for the pastor and the congregation at St. John's, but the policy of this church is clear," he wrote. "It was my responsibility as bishop of this synod to enforce the established standards of this church, particularly after the 2005 Churchwide Assembly decided that the church would not create a process for possible exceptions to existing behavior expectations for pastors. As this church continues prayerfully to consider the issue of clergy who are gay or lesbian and in committed relationships, both the synod and I will continue to work on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements." Schmeling and the St. John Lutheran Church congregation shared the news of the Committee on Appeals on July 3, Warren wrote. Warren said he and Schmeling talked by phone July 5. They agreed that Warren and synod staff will meet with the congregation council's executive committee and the St. John congregation in the coming weeks. "Please remember all of us who are involved in this difficult and challenging process in your intercessory prayers," Warren's statement concluded. "I'm deeply disappointed by the decision, although I'm not surprised," Schmeling said in a July 5 news release in response to the appeals committee decision. "Change has always proven difficult for the church. I continue to hope that the church will be centered in God's message of love, compassion, and justice, rather than in the enforcement of discriminatory policies. The church can only resist the Holy Spirit for so long. In the meantime, I plan to continue to follow my call in ministry at St. John's and to pray for the day when all God's children are equally welcomed into the Lutheran church," he said. John Ballew, president of St. John Lutheran Church, said in the congregation's news release: "We are going to go to (the) Churchwide Assembly in August, to witness to our ELCA the costs of this decision, based on an absurd policy. This is not just about us and our wonderful pastor; this is about all those called to minister to God's people, who lead exemplary lives, who provide a model for faithful, loving companionship with each other and with Christ."
Here's what I have to say:
Isn't it "perfectly marvelous" to see that even those in the highest positions of power in the Church can completely ignore the call of the Spirit? It's things like this that force our young people out of our churches: that the Church is a backward facing, love ignoring, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED institution that does not listen to God's call or care about speaking to future generations; an institution that cares more about discriminating against a significant population of the Church because "THEY" are such sinners, instead of recognizing that we all fall short; an institution that prefers to point fingers at others so that they don't have to point fingers at themselves; an institution that prefers to hate, marginalize, oppress, and/or ignore rather than reach out--die thinking they are without sin, that is, rather than live with "sinners" in their midst.
ELCA Committee on Appeals Rules in Atlanta Discipline Case 07-123-JB
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The Committee on Appeals of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) ruled July 2 in favor of an appeal by the Rev. Ronald B. Warren, bishop of the ELCA Southeastern Synod, Atlanta, who sought removal of Bradley E. Schmeling, Atlanta, from the official clergy roster of the ELCA. The appeals committee ruled that Schmeling was to be removed immediately from the roster, upholding the determination by a disciplinary hearing committee that Schmeling was in violation of the ELCA policy regarding the sexual conduct of its pastors. Decisions of the Committee on Appeals are not made public by the ELCA churchwide organization. According to the ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions, summaries of decisions are to be reported to the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly, the church's highest legislative authority, which will be here at Navy Pier Aug. 6-11. In this case, the decision of the Committee on Appeals was released July 5 by Warren and posted on the synod's Web site, and it was released at a July 5 news conference at St. John Lutheran Church, Atlanta, the congregation Schmeling has served since 2000. In the ELCA policy document "Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the ELCA," it states: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." Warren filed formal charges in 2006 against Schmeling after Schmeling reported to Warren that he was in a committed relationship with another man, a violation of the ELCA's clergy standards. Seven members of the 12-member discipline hearing committee, which met Jan. 18-24 in Atlanta, voted to remove Schmeling from the ELCA clergy roster and stayed the effective date of his removal until Aug. 15. That committee issued its opinion Feb. 7. In separate filings in March, Warren and Schmeling both appealed the decision of the discipline hearing committee. The 12-member Committee on Appeals met here June 9-10 to consider the appeals. That committee voted 10-1, with one abstention, to remove Schmeling from the clergy roster. It voted 10-2 to reverse the discipline hearing committee's decision to stay the effective date of Schmeling's removal from the roster until Aug. 15, and it voted 10-2 to remove Schmeling from the clergy roster on July 2. The Committee on Appeals noted that the ELCA Constitution states that "the decision of the discipline hearing committee shall be final on the day it is issued by the committee," and that "nowhere in ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions is a discipline hearing committee authorized to stay its own decision." "In this regard, the Committee on Appeals determines that the effective date of Pastor Schmeling's removal from the clergy roster of the ELCA ... should have been Feb. 7, 2007," the Committee on Appeals said. The discipline hearing committee's written opinion said most of its members were concerned about certain language in ELCA clergy policy documents, and it made some specific suggestions for change. That opinion suggested synod assemblies ask the ELCA Churchwide Assembly to consider proposals for change. The Committee on Appeals said its role, as well as that of a discipline hearing committee, is to serve as a judicial body, and that legislative authority to change policies is the responsibility of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly and the ELCA Church Council, which serves as the church's board of directors. "Nothing in the ELCA Constitution, Bylaws and Continuing Resolutions allows a discipline hearing committee to make any particular recommendations to the legislative bodies of this church, urging them to take a specific policy action. By doing so in this case, the discipline hearing committee exceeded the authority granted to it by the ELCA Constitution," the Committee on Appeals said.
Responses to the Appeals Committee decision In response to the decision, Warren posted a pastoral letter July 5 on the ELCA Southeastern Synod Web site. "My decision to seek Pastor Schmeling's removal from the ministry of this church was difficult because of my deep respect for the pastor and the congregation at St. John's, but the policy of this church is clear," he wrote. "It was my responsibility as bishop of this synod to enforce the established standards of this church, particularly after the 2005 Churchwide Assembly decided that the church would not create a process for possible exceptions to existing behavior expectations for pastors. As this church continues prayerfully to consider the issue of clergy who are gay or lesbian and in committed relationships, both the synod and I will continue to work on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements." Schmeling and the St. John Lutheran Church congregation shared the news of the Committee on Appeals on July 3, Warren wrote. Warren said he and Schmeling talked by phone July 5. They agreed that Warren and synod staff will meet with the congregation council's executive committee and the St. John congregation in the coming weeks. "Please remember all of us who are involved in this difficult and challenging process in your intercessory prayers," Warren's statement concluded. "I'm deeply disappointed by the decision, although I'm not surprised," Schmeling said in a July 5 news release in response to the appeals committee decision. "Change has always proven difficult for the church. I continue to hope that the church will be centered in God's message of love, compassion, and justice, rather than in the enforcement of discriminatory policies. The church can only resist the Holy Spirit for so long. In the meantime, I plan to continue to follow my call in ministry at St. John's and to pray for the day when all God's children are equally welcomed into the Lutheran church," he said. John Ballew, president of St. John Lutheran Church, said in the congregation's news release: "We are going to go to (the) Churchwide Assembly in August, to witness to our ELCA the costs of this decision, based on an absurd policy. This is not just about us and our wonderful pastor; this is about all those called to minister to God's people, who lead exemplary lives, who provide a model for faithful, loving companionship with each other and with Christ."
Here's what I have to say:
Isn't it "perfectly marvelous" to see that even those in the highest positions of power in the Church can completely ignore the call of the Spirit? It's things like this that force our young people out of our churches: that the Church is a backward facing, love ignoring, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED institution that does not listen to God's call or care about speaking to future generations; an institution that cares more about discriminating against a significant population of the Church because "THEY" are such sinners, instead of recognizing that we all fall short; an institution that prefers to point fingers at others so that they don't have to point fingers at themselves; an institution that prefers to hate, marginalize, oppress, and/or ignore rather than reach out--die thinking they are without sin, that is, rather than live with "sinners" in their midst.
What is Faith Really About?
I decided last night that I just can't hold most of these thoughts in any longer, and my opportunties for outlet are far less often than I would like, and certainly more limited than I need. So, this is my outlet. Quite frankly I'm not sure it matters if anyone is really reading or commenting on these posts, I just need to get it out.
That said, I would REALLY appreciate your thoughts...regardless of whether or not you agree. I see the need for all of the perspectives of the world. I am not saying that I am going to be impartial...quite the contrary, I will probably be quite opinionated. You must know now that I can, and often do, see both sides of the issues, but in this setting I get to just say what I think and not worry about what is really on the table.
Oh, and re-reading what I've written here reminds me of one more thing: you can expect that many of these posts will be a bit more "stream-of-consciousness" than I would like, at least until I get a handle on this sort of outlet for my thoughts (much more personal than my other blog). Forgive me for that, and have a little patience.
Until Next Time...
Many Blessings,
JCM
That said, I would REALLY appreciate your thoughts...regardless of whether or not you agree. I see the need for all of the perspectives of the world. I am not saying that I am going to be impartial...quite the contrary, I will probably be quite opinionated. You must know now that I can, and often do, see both sides of the issues, but in this setting I get to just say what I think and not worry about what is really on the table.
Oh, and re-reading what I've written here reminds me of one more thing: you can expect that many of these posts will be a bit more "stream-of-consciousness" than I would like, at least until I get a handle on this sort of outlet for my thoughts (much more personal than my other blog). Forgive me for that, and have a little patience.
Until Next Time...
Many Blessings,
JCM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
