Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, here it is again. The big, bad, evil ELCA acting in order to…
Preserve what legitimately belongs to it. At the request of some of its members. How awful.
There are a lot of questions I can't answer, Peter, which makes me different from some folks here.
Let's try to narrow the focus and maybe, just maybe, touch a bit of reality.
What I see in my brief exposureto the document at hand is this. Again; I may not catch their real thing, but this is what I see.
1. We in the churches tolerate couples living together outside of the marriage bond. Our children do it; our council members do it; sometimes our parents and grandparents do it. Folks coming to us for weddings have usually been living together, sometimes for years.
2. But we insist that pastors and deacons have only one "valid" means of partnered living - marriage.
3. Is this fair?
4. Does this make marriage a kind of "norm" and the only way for people to form intimate living arrangements?
5. Can we discuss this with an eye towards recognizing - for pastors and deacons - the same tolerance in living arrangements as we grant to our laypeople?
That is how I see the discussion. Not quite as racy as swingers' parties or as lurid as prostitution, and - please note - not as easy to dismiss or bat down. (Spike that last thought; it's very easy for some people to dismiss and bat down. But not everyone.)
In some quarters, the word for those who avail themselves of something because they can do so without paying - even though others do pay - is freeloader.
Society tolerates them, sometimes eyeing them with pity or a sense of mercy. Maybe they really can't afford about two bucks a month for what they get. But usually not, a freeloader thinks he or she is entitled or enjoys the sense of getting something for "nothing." (It's not nothing because others are paying for it to even be there.)
Pastor Enebretsen:
Admitting to "white privilege" is admittedly a new thing in my history. And I honestly don't know what one is supposed to do with it.
I comment:
Well, acknowledging it may be good enough. At least for some people. And if we do not acknowledge it, we become complicit in perpetuating it.
Pastor Engebretsen:
Am I supposed to assume a certain level of guilt?
Me:
Not necessarily.
Pastor Engebretsen:
But if I don't have to "atone" for it, then what? Or is this awareness supposed to lead ultimately to major changes in society to 'level the playing field'?
Me:
Do not try to be utopian. But we hope changes will come, don't we?
Pastor Engebretsen:
Didn't we try this with "affirmative action"?
Me:
We not only tried; in many cases, we succeeded.
Pastor Engebretsen:
And what of all those African-Americans who have succeeded well beyond the general white population? Did they succeed 'against all odds' in a heroic way, were they simply assisted by forms of affirmative actions, or did many of them succeed the way many of their white counterparts did, through skill, scholarship and hard work?
Me:
Some succeeded by overcoming great odds. Some were assisted by affirmative action; and some just worked hard and succeeded. And some failed, even when assisted by affirmative action. But some were never given the proper chance or an equal footing.
Pastor Engebretsen:
Not all whites are unequally "privileged." Some whites succeed at a much lower level than blacks.
Me:
That means nothing. And I don't know how you measure the "levels" or comparisons.
And yes, Pastor. This is who we are. We do things like this. This is not all we do, this is not all of who we are, but we do do this. Do you suggest we keep it secret when we do this?
)This outside observer contends that not only are there some in the LCMS who desire divisions, there are some who look for them, exploit them, and make themselves feel good about pointing them out. If it weren't for division, disunity, and error, or the fear and suspicion of such, they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Such folk exist.
In the half of my life I spent as a newspaper reporter, I dealt with public forums, and I dealt with confidential and background information. It ain't rocket surgery. If you speak up in a public forum, anyone anywhere has access to your words and a right to know who you are. On occasion someone who spoke out at a school board meeting would say "now don't quote me," to which I would respond, "then don't say it, because if I choose, I will quote you." They say "do you have to use my name," and I respond "ninety-five percent of the time, yes."
This is a public forum. We who are here have a right to know with whom we are speaking. The pastor with a vocational crisis should not be blurting out his or her doubts or insecurities here. I suppose there are private forums on the internet if one finds the need.
Or, in an extremely rare case, someone might be posting here without their name on the postings, but we have the right to know who "Tonto" is. Our right to honesty and openness in conversation overrides someone's personal need for anonymity.
But we digress.
It should surprise absolutely no one that the ELCA now has approved rites for same-sex unions. Carry on.
