Draft ELCA Social Statement on Women & Justice Released

[RPG]

The ELCA Task Force on Women and Justice: One in Christ invites you to read and evaluate the “Draft of a Social Statement on Women and Justice.”

The statement, including glossary and notes, runs about 60 pages. I've attached the PDF for your convenience. Hold onto your hats.

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.
RPG+
 

[peterm]

It should be noted that, as this is a draft, the final statement could look different.  As such it seems to me to be a little early for hand wringing.  The comment by RPG predisposes the conversation on the negative side which is unfortunate and not helpful for general conversation.

[RPG]

It should be noted that, as this is a draft, the final statement could look different.  As such it seems to me to be a little early for hand wringing.  The comment by RPG predisposes the conversation on the negative side which is unfortunate and not helpful for general conversation.

Speaking for myself, I am not wringing my hands. But, having perused the draft--albeit briefly--I am also aware that, as written, it is breaking some major theological ground.

For those of us who have been trying hard to support the national expression of the denomination that we love, and interpret ELCA Social Statements to our congregations in the kindest way, the release of these drafts often makes things interesting, to say the least.  I probably should have kept my nagging grief to myself at this moment and not expressed the Kyrie publicly.

I would be interested in hearing what you, and others, think of the draft statement.
RPG+

[peterm]

I will read it through when I have time.  I'm sorry if I misread you, but I sometimes get tired of the finger pointing and jumping on the ELCA that happens around these parts.  By no means is the ELCA perfect, and I don't agree with everything but that doesn't mean we have to jump all over them all the time.

[Voelker]

The document uses the phrase "we celebrate that"; this is reason enough to be suspicious of anything else it says.

[RPG]

I will read it through when I have time.  I'm sorry if I misread you, but I sometimes get tired of the finger pointing and jumping on the ELCA that happens around these parts.  By no means is the ELCA perfect, and I don't agree with everything but that doesn't mean we have to jump all over them all the time.

You are forgiven.

In Christ's peace,
RPG+

[Richard Johnson]

My initial reactions after just perusing the opening summary, and with the caveat that obviously this is an important issue.

(1) Another social statement vying to be the longest and most verbose in ELCA history (and a quick analysis suggests it may be in the lead).
(2) Another social statement burdened with jargon largely cribbed from secular culture.
(3) Another social statement that tries to shoehorn a wide variety of quite different issues into its purview (so it deals, for instance, with transgender rights, immigration, racism, Biblical translation, language about God, just to name a few).

And, very interestingly, given the news stories of the moment, a social statement that only uses the word "harassment" once in 60+ pages, and that in the context of harassing men and boys who do not "match the ideal model of masculinity"!

But then nobody ever accused the church of being ahead of the curve . . . 

[John_Hannah]

My initial reactions after just perusing the opening summary, and with the caveat that obviously this is an important issue.

(1) Another social statement vying to be the longest and most verbose in ELCA history (and a quick analysis suggests it may be in the lead).
(2) Another social statement burdened with jargon largely cribbed from secular culture.
(3) Another social statement that tries to shoehorn a wide variety of quite different issues into its purview (so it deals, for instance, with transgender rights, immigration, racism, Biblical translation, language about God, just to name a few).

And, very interestingly, given the news stories of the moment, a social statement that only uses the word "harassment" once in 60+ pages, and that in the context of harassing men and boys who do not "match the ideal model of masculinity"!

But then nobody ever accused the church of being ahead of the curve . . .

 

[Charles Austin]

I do not predict, but I wonder whether the DRAFT social statement will 1) represent the final version, 2) actually make it to the assembly, and 3) win approval.
One might contend that the issues dealt with do not, in every case, need a "Social Statement" in order to be of concern for the ELCA or to form policy for the ELCA.
It will be interesting to see the discussion that ensues, who thumps the tub and who mounts the barricades.
But I do predict some things:
1. Whatever the final form the statement takes, the LCMS will find it "heterodox" or worse.
2. Certain folk outside the ELCA will take it as an occasion to say "See! That's why we left!!!"
3. Certain folk in the ELCA will speak as if the Whole Proclamation Of The Gospel depends upon it.
3. Many within the ELCA, perhaps more than is healthy for this church, will say "what social statement?"
4. People concerned about the issues it raises will tackle those issues pretty much the same way they are addressing them now.
Personally, I'm not gonna read it this week-end.

[Voelker]

1. Whatever the final form the statement takes, the LCMS will find it "heterodox" or worse.

Given the LCMS teaching on women as pastors, etc., this as written would not pass muster, though a cursory look tells me it won't be worth a response of any sort.

Let us hope that there is at least some pushback in the ELCA when it comes to theologically problematic language such as (p 34): "... while Jesus was historically male, God as such is beyond gender"; as well as to truly questionable points such as "In both creation stories, the first human is neither male nor female but simply human" (p 12).

[Brian Stoffregen]

1. Whatever the final form the statement takes, the LCMS will find it "heterodox" or worse.

Given the LCMS teaching on women as pastors, etc., this as written would not pass muster, though a cursory look tells me it won't be worth a response of any sort.

Let us hope that there is at least some pushback in the ELCA when it comes to theologically problematic language such as (p 34): "... while Jesus was historically male, God as such is beyond gender"; as well as to truly questionable points such as "In both creation stories, the frst human is neither male nor female but simply human" (p 12).

Do you believe that the pre-incarnated Word was male?


The use of the Hebrew word 'adam in both creation stories refers to "humankind" - both males and females. It is certainly clear in the first story, but could also apply to the second.

[Charles Austin]

In human history, Jesus was male. What is wrong with saying that?

[scott9]

In human history, Jesus was male. What is wrong with saying that?

He's still male.

[Voelker]

1. Whatever the final form the statement takes, the LCMS will find it "heterodox" or worse.

Given the LCMS teaching on women as pastors, etc., this as written would not pass muster, though a cursory look tells me it won't be worth a response of any sort.

Let us hope that there is at least some pushback in the ELCA when it comes to theologically problematic language such as (p 34): "... while Jesus was historically male, God as such is beyond gender"; as well as to truly questionable points such as "In both creation stories, the frst human is neither male nor female but simply human" (p 12).

Do you believe that the pre-incarnated Word was male?

Not in view here.

The use of the Hebrew word 'adam in both creation stories refers to "humankind" - both males and females. It is certainly clear in the first story, but could also apply to the second.

Yet the "second" story goes on from there, making clear that we are dealing with a man, and then a woman. The document appears at points such as this to be intentionally obtuse.

[Voelker]

In human history, Jesus was male. What is wrong with saying that?

He's still male.

Bingo.