I read the essay and am struggling to understand what in the world Bp. Rimbo is saying. Is it that participation in progressive political action is the true path to salvation? And that you might (but probably won't) somehow connect the politics to some religion or other? Or to an amalgamation of all religions?
Indeed.
"However, in these tumultuous times faith can seem elusive amid a world left weary by politicized religion, divisive rhetoric, terrorism, skepticism, and an ever-growing distrust of leaders, icons and institutions.
Yet, it is often in the darkest most disorienting moments that faith can be rediscovered, and truly embraced. And it may – or may not – come from time spent in a house of worship.
I think the best way to rekindle faith is to be in places where faith can find us. I’m not simply writing to invite you to a mosque or synagogue or church. I’m inviting you to places where people of faith gather and participate in the movement of progression and inclusion we are working hard to achieve."
So he starts by suggesting that "people of faith gather and participate in the movement of progression and inclusion we are working hard to achieve." But he also suggests that those people "may -- or may not . . . " be found in a church, or mosque, or synagogue. So it's unclear what he's asking for here. Is he suggesting people of faith who share progressive values are unwelcome in the progressive movement? Is he saying that you don't have to come to our churches, mosques, synagogues, etc., in order to have this nebulous "faith" he suggests exists among progressives? Is he trying to reach the "nones," but without actually having the "nones" do anything to be part of the movement of "people of faith" he references? It's all very unclear.
He goes on:
"There is a great commitment among leaders of various communities of faith to engage progressive advances at the grassroots level, to promote tolerance, and to encourage people to flourish in a new and needed age of community. The amazing strides between Lutherans and Roman Catholics point to this."
I wonder how many faithful Roman Catholics would agree with this framing of the issue? I've always found it odd that liberal Lutherans love to glom onto discussions with Roman Catholics as somehow providing evidence that their view is winning out, while simultaneously refusing the actual Roman Catholic faith as defined and promulgated by her bishops.
Then there is this:
"There is a strong desire and willingness to work on welcoming all people in a spirit of generous hospitality. As a Lutheran I can say that many of my tribe are engaged in ministry with the LGBTQ communities. In our own Synod here in Metropolitan New York, we are working to address the systemic racism which is America’s original sin. We are strongly speaking out in opposition to the anti-Semitism and Islamophobia all around us. We are engaged with faithful people in our own country and around the world in addressing the abuses of power we see every day. We find our faith and inspiration through these initiatives and we welcome all to join us in this progression."
I don't think anyone would find that particularly objectionable in a vacuum. I think Christians ought to be about ministering to gays and lesbians. We ought to be about stopping systemic racism. But what is left unsaid here is important -- HOW do we do those things? Do we do so as Christians, that is, as the Church has always done? Or are we being asked to set aside the faith to embrace secular progressive values and policies that can, and often do, end up undermining the Church?
Then, there is the cognitive dissonance found in this comment:
"There are local congregations in which people of faith are welcoming people of all races and nations, one of the great gifts of the amazing communities in which we live."
And yet, the ELCA is comprised mostly of white baby boomers, a majority of whom are women. Racially, it is among the least diverse Christian organizations in our country. Less than 5% of the people in the ELCA are people of any color that isn't white. Nearly 90% are third generation or greater Americans, meaning they also are not reaching immigrants in any significant way. Over 3 quarters of the ELCA do not have children under 18. Nearly 70% believe morality is situational, that is, relative. Nearly half seldom or never read the Scriptures.
So yes. There are local congregations in which people of faith are welcoming people of all races and nations. And I assume that all of the ELCA's congregations are so "welcoming." The question is, then, why aren't those people actually joining your congregations? Because you're still a bunch of old white people, mostly women, without young kids.
I'd suggest this is demonstrable in my comment above -- yes, you're welcoming. But they don't want to be your friends. Why? Because they (rightly, IMHO) think you're pandering to them. People want authenticity.
Take that a step further. The Roman Catholic Church, cited by Bishop Rimbo, is less than 60% white. Hispanics are the 2nd largest demographic, followed by African Americans, who comprise about 3%. The Orthodox Church is over 80% white, but we have 8% African Americans, 6% Latino and 3% Asian. None of these are up to American demographic standards -- all of those groups are more widely represented in the general population (with the exception of Latino Roman Catholics, who are over-represented compared to the general population), but both of those communions are beating the pants off the ELCA, which prides itself on inclusiveness. I'd suggest this is because both of those communions are truer to their actual faith. They aren't trying to be "inclusive." They're trying to be faithful. And people appreciate faithfulness.
