Little Stone Bridges & Why We Fight for Them
Sarah Hey www.standfirminfaith.com
The following abridged article was written by an Episcopalian in discourse with all the issues in her denomination. The full text is available on the web.
The bridge is made of grey stone, of course, and it has a beautiful arch in its span. It is old, and its architect had an artist's heart, but it has clearly seen better days. Save for those fighting over it, there aren't a whole lot of people around, either to take note of the melee and carry news back to others, or to take part in the battle. It is unlikely that they will receive reinforcements. But for some very strange reason, a number of them – a small unit – are being told to fight for this bridge.
Inevitably in the times surrounding a fierce, heated battle a soldier must think occasionally "What on earth am I doing out here in the middle of nowhere, fighting for this silly little piece of land that my unit leader has told me to go out and take? It's not worth the bloodshed, I see no tactical or strategic merit to it, and besides, I could get killed for pretty much no reason other than taking that knoll, or traversing the river, or battling all day across this field. I have much better, and even more useful things to do back in my tent."
In our own Episcopal church case, I have frequently imagined that we are out in the middle of some forest, with a little stream or river running through it, and a quaint, slightly crumbling and vine-clinging, little stone bridge crossing the body of water. It is a pitched battle, full of hurled insults and internet bloodshed, tactical actions, retreats by some (or perhaps calls back to their camp to await further orders), logistics and communications challenges, going awol, unexpected heroism, despair, and much more. We keep waiting for further orders, but so far the same command keeps reaching us – to hold the bridge. It appears rather unlikely -- we're at hand-to-hand combat at this point.
Inevitably during the battle there arises in the soldier's mind – perhaps during a lull when the sound of sharpening swords fills the air – a bemusement over what on earth he or she is doing in this mess?
In my own case, I have always envisioned, somehow, a different life from the one I have led over the past three years. This particular battle over a little stone bridge was not where I had thought I could best use my gifts. Somehow I had always imagined that musing deep thoughts, doing a little fiction writing, reading great books, climbing the corporate ladder, hiking various interesting trails, getting my kayak roll and perhaps a little more pop on my serve, and generally examining the beauties of nature, more where . . . well . . . where my gifts lay.
Pretty much everyone I've talked with on our team feels the same way – surely there are a whole lot better things to do with one's time! Surely God sees how very much I can offer Him elsewhere? Surely God has been calling me to more pleasant tasks, more suited to my personality!
So here we all are out in the middle of an otherwise quiet forest, sharpening our swords, discussing the little stone bridge, arguing over strategy, and engaging in light or sometimes fierce skirmishes. So we ask the question. Why on earth are we out here fighting over this little stone bridge?
I will leave the theologizing and the philosophizing and the issues of Truth and the gospel to other minds, for now, although I have some arguments along those lines. Instead I'll address the question with some very practical responses.
First, we must take note that our Worthy Opponents are in the thick of the battle too. They seem to want this little stone bridge with a great deal of fervor, and all of us must ponder that fact and speculate as to why. Commitment to the cause of Christ
I won't speculate, other than to say that we are fighting over this little stone bridge because it is greatly desired by others. That in itself is noteworthy.
I suspect that this particular little bridge is of interest for a number of reasons – it is little, for one, and thus easily captured. It is crumbling, so that is attractively weak, yet still carries the troops from one bank of the river to the other and so is a useful vehicle. And for a number of decades its bridge-keepers and watchers were somewhat . . . slumberous, shall we say.
Second, once ground is taken, and territory conquered, battle-hardened units don't generally set up fine, plush camps, smoke pipes, and cook gourmet food. They don't establish themselves there . . . they rest a little, tend their wounds, and move on.
In other words, they advance their flag, and seek other territory to conquer. The little stone bridge over which they had fought so vigorously the day before, they now use as a launching pad, as a base of operations, from which to field more forces. The leader may establish a base camp, a field operation camp, but he only does so in order to send more troops into battle farther out into the woods, and the fields beyond.
So we are fighting over this little stone bridge because we do not wish for them to be able to use it as a launch pad. The truth is, as long as we are fighting over it, their will be no real "launching efforts" on their part.
There is a reason, for instance, why the national secular media presents two sides to the Episcopal church issue, rather than one side, and that is because full rulership of the Episcopal church has not at all been fully established. The church is not able to "speak its prophetic voice" to the culture, without another voice piping up from within saying "that's not true and here's why." If you think this is not a source of endless frustration to the powers-that-be – that they are unable to make pronouncements without having that very annoying voice from within clogging up their news articles – then I urge you to ponder just how vexed you would be if in your organization, your corporation, the same thing were happening. Most such "annoying voices" are your outside competitors, not your internal employees!
Third, once a piece of territory is captured, and some of the troops venture off to new unconquered fields, other of the troops are deployed as reinforcements to other battles. And here, we must take the back of an eagle and soar up above our own tiny patch of forest and bridge and survey the broader landscape.
As we survey the landscape, we must marvel – it takes our breath away – over the sight of smoke rising from the earth and the sounds of metal clashing on metal all over the land.
You see, there are, come to find out, little stone bridges in the middle of forests everywhere and they are being fought over tooth and nail. And there are fields, small encampments, granaries, great plains with armies on them, oceans with ships on them, and small wounded clumps of troops, hunted amongst the rocks after a defeat. All of them are embattled.
There are countless little stone bridges where people, mostly unfit for battle, and certainly not having planned to spend their lives in this way, are fighting pitched battles. The little stone bridges are various. They are the media. Christians who are working their hardest to offer truthful facts and perspectives of integrity to their readers and viewers. Christians trying to offer alternative vehicles, or Christians working at the New York Times. And those of us at our own quaint little stone bridge know little of them.
The medical field is another little stone bridge. The pitched battles that are being fought over medical ethics, the American Medical Association, the best way to help the poor, and so much more are copious and bloody and long-lasting and far-reaching. There are countless Christian physicians who work in small practices or large, in university hospitals and inner city hospitals, whose political and governmental battles were certainly never sought or imagined when they first set out to practice the healing arts.
The legal field is another. The challenges to the rule of law – some notion of truth and justice being enforced in integrity and honor – are too numerous to mention. And the lawyer jokes abound, while Christian attorneys duke it out in their own associations, in the courts, in the offices, and yes, even the government.
Which of course, brings up to the little stone bridge of secular politics, where the fight is intense, and often cast as "unworthy of us Christians". From school boards, and city councils, to state legislatures, and the halls of Federal power, there are Christians who are privately wondering "what on earth am I doing out here in the middle of nowhere, with few allies, fighting over this little stone bridge, which I don't think is all that beautiful, come to think of it".
As we take a closer look at the forests and plains covered in battle, we find numerous stone bridges in other denominations, and even in churches of no denomination. The more obvious are, of course, the mainline denominations, where our brothers and sisters are in various stages of attack, withdrawal, flanking maneuvers, rebuilding, and more.
And then there are the halls of academia. The secular universities, the liberal arts colleges, the private academies, all with Christians who are staking out territory, with their own little stone bridges to fight over.
I cannot leave out the corporate world, of course. In every vast corporation, and in numerous small businesses there are the battles over ethics, the confrontations with the organizations that represent their industry, the internal struggles, the unhelpful and draconian governmental interference, and the corrupt enforcement processes that make life much worse for the customer. Little stone bridges that amount to a huge effect on our cultural life.
And finally, of course, there is the much despised "Hollywood" little stone bridge. Christians there are more surrounded than we can imagine, film-makers, writers, actors, producers, all struggling to produce a good and worthy product while resisting the corrupting trends of their own associations and organizations. And believe me, they have a whole lot of "friends and erstwhile advisors" galloping by and, rather than lending a helpful hand or encouraging word, instead hurling pejoratives and maligning the usefulness of the fight.
And folks . . . the above brief list doesn't cover the half of it. Furthermore, as the "culture wars" – the attempts by other forces to thoroughly secularize the culture in which we are immersed – heat up and expand, the battles will become much, much worse, much more intense, and much more devastating. I frankly don't believe that it will get better. The more that Christians become involved in the fights over little stone bridges, the more loud the outrage from those on the other side who until then had enjoyed an easy and convenient advance.
So our survey of the land offers up this third practical reason why we fight over this particular little stone bridge and that is because we don't want the other side, once victory is assured, deploying reinforcements to the other fields of battle where our comrades are engaged in desperate battles of their own.
That completes my short list of practical reasons. But I offer a few more reflections for you to chew on.
What about those who have left this particular little stone bridge or are thinking about leaving?
First, I say go with God, brother or sister in Christ, if you receive other orders. You are a worthy ally, and no doubt we shall meet again on some other field or plain. And second, I hope that you learned whatever it was you were supposed to learn while fighting this battle – that is, as long as you were fighting it. Because if you were sitting under a shady oak tree and sipping dry martinis when you suddenly heard the sound of warfare a few yards downstream, and having just recently noted the battle, have now suddenly discovered new orders to other more comfortable climes . . . I somehow suspect that those orders have been forged and that you have not at all learned what you were meant to learn.
I am reminded of an early blog comment some time back in 2004, I believe, when a man posted on some site the happy news that he was "outta here" and on to a much better place. He could finally cease all of this silly, and useless fighting over an unworthy trivial corrupt Episcopal church, because he had crossed the Tiber and joined the Roman Catholic church.
He had not learned a crucial lesson, one that I suspect that God wants us all to learn.
I considered a response – it would have been somewhat cruel, I am sorry to say – but before I could do so, someone else had piped up with a comment along these lines:
"Welcome, brother. We hope you find rest and refreshment here on the shores of the Tiber. It is a beautiful place. Cast yourself down on its grassy banks and rest a while. . . . . But after you've rested – and please don't do so for very long – get up, strap back on your armor, and get back into the battle. We have a whole lot of fighting to do in this church and it is under assault as well."
But that leads me to what I think is a lesson I've been learning, and that is . . . you're not going to leave the battle for long. Wherever you go – there you are. And there'll be something fierce, something hideous, something demoralizing, something that seems doomed all over again, to fight your heart out for.
So should you leave the Episcopal church, make certain that you leave for something that you love. And make certain you have a passion for whatever battle you choose. For choose a battle you will, if you have learned one of the crucial lessons of this painful drama in the Episcopal church; you won't be able to leave the battle, even if you leave the Episcopal church.
And since we must fight, it is better to fight over something that we love than something that we don't.
Many of you are struggling with the question of what on earth you are to do now. I believe that there has been a great deal of clarity brought to the world over the state of the leadership of our national church. It has not been a very pretty airing.
Furthermore, as I posted yesterday, the most intensive clustering of progressive Episcopalians always occurs at political events, the larger the better, and particularly our national General Convention. Some excellent Episcopalians will leave after this most interesting 11 days, and some have left long before this particular event, years and decades earlier.
And yet, the 2006 General Convention has never been my own personal deadline, as it seems to have been for some Episcopalians. There was never an event that was going to "prove that the Episcopal church was really, really, really doing heretical things" beyond the 2003 General Convention. I have believed that the 2006 General Convention was clearly a deadline for our church's national leaders, and that deadline for them, and much to their dismay, was set by the Windsor Report and Dromantine Communique. They have responded, for good or ill, to the deadline.
That deadline is now past, and there will be much that unfolds in the coming months. In regards to my own decision-making, I have no time deadline, but I shall be watching with interest certain events and directions of our church history. I will be, for instance, taking a keen interest in the titular leader of the Anglican Communion, particularly if he moves to establish much-needed discipline, order, and structure to this fledgling and fragile global communion of Anglicans. Make no mistake – should he do so, it will certainly not be the close or the end of the skirmishes. We will not be able to cheer for very long, and those who care for the Anglican Communion – and I care for it more than I do the Episcopal church – will not then be able to float away on flowery beds of ease.
I shall also be watching with interest, and taking note of the actions of the Global South, should Canterbury fail to strengthen the identity and discipline of the Anglican Communion. I personally believe that if he fails, it will be a great tragedy for a historic, worldwide church body, and that this body will also fail and fracture terribly. Those two places – Canterbury and the South – will be attentively observed by me and others.
But in the meantime, should you find those observation points as interesting as I do, what can you do while you are watching international events unfold? What can I do? For in an earlier post I stated that my philosophy is that there can be no passive waiting in the Episcopal church by traditional Christians. They are either working and working hard, or they are leaving. I see no "in-between" rest and relaxation possibilities for us.
I hope that you will take time to think, pray, read scripture, and take counsel with your local allies and friends. I hope that you will watch leaders like Kendall Harmon and Bob Duncan. Their choices may not be right for you, but their attitude and perspectives will probably be helpful.
Some of you are "stuck;" you are in a small town with few choices. Or for various family or some intensely personal reasons you do not feel able to leave the Episcopal church. Some of you are in strong parishes in unhealthy or revisionist dioceses. Or in weak parishes in healthy dioceses. Others are certain of their calling to fight over this little stone bridge, but are not sure how.
No matter what sort of diocese you live in, or what sort of parish, there is much to be done and many efforts, allies, and victories to be won. I can assure you that, with God’s grace and if you have His calling, you will become a better person for it as well. The details of this battle will move to local and regional and diocesan fields and away from the national structures – territory will be gained and territory lost in regions. I can certainly share stories of past defeats and past victories, with some guideposts along the way.
Take a while to mull things over, and consider what you want – and what God might want. Who knows? Someday we both might look up and find that we are fighting side by side on a little stone bridge.
Churchwide Issue in 2007
On August 15, 2006, Bishop Ronald Warren of the Southeastern Synod brought forth charges against Rev. Brad Schmeling, who had declared that he was in a same-gender relationship. Understanding Vision and Expectations to preclude this, the bishop began a process of disciplinary reviews. The discipline committee met and affirmed the gifts and ministry that had been done by Rev. Schmeling. The full text of the report is available on the web at at.http://www.elca.org/news/Releases.asp?a=3521. Arguably, the committee report stated that they felt the ELCA guidelines should be revisited and revised. In 2005, CWA moved the bishop’s statement of 1993 from a directive to effective policy, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, this church holds that "marriage is a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman" (Message on Sexuality: Some Common Convictions [1996], page 3); and WHEREAS, the Conference of Bishops in October 1993 stated, "We, as the Conference of Bishops of the ELCA, recognize that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church's ministry. Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister" (CB93.10.25); therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America continue to respect the guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops; and be it further RESOLVED, that this church welcome gay and lesbian persons into its life (as stated in Churchwide Assembly resolutions from 1991, 1995, and 1999), and trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care for all to whom they minister.
On the heels of the decision in Atlanta, in the New England Synod, Bishop Payne asked that the document bearing the decision of the committee be made available to all rostered leaders of our synod. It concludes, "It is the decision of this discipline hearing committee that the Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling be removed from the clergy roster of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, effective August 15, 2007."
Prior to this conclusion, which was based on current policies and bylaws, the committee stated its suggestion that: 1) Synod assemblies memorialize the Churchwide Assembly to request that "Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline" be revised to "remove the language that specifically precludes practicing homosexuals from service as ordained ministers of this church." 2) Synod assemblies memorialize the Churchwide Assembly to "reconsider and revise "Vision and Expectations" to remove the specific prohibition against homosexual sexual relationships." 3) Synod assemblies memorialize the Churchwide Assembly to reconsider and revise the policy of reinstatement to the rosters to "permit persons who have resigned or have been removed from the rosters of this church solely because they have entered into a loving, lifelong partnership with another person of the same sex that is mutual, chaste, and faithful, to apply for reinstatement immediately."
Many synods have been involved in a memorialization process this year that includes the issues in response to this case and are slated for action at the upcoming Churchwide Assembly in Chicago in August. Will they promote a significant change ahead of the predetermined 2009 Assembly where this issue is to be fully discussed and determined.
The ELW Psalms
Dr. George Muenich
In the new ELW, the Psalms have been critically altered in many instances. Of the one hundred and fifty Psalms, ninety-nine are re-written and don’t even come close to an acceptable translation, let alone paraphrase of the original. They are neither acceptable English, nor do they retain any honoring of the original language. Eighteen of the Psalms are questionable, and only thirty-three are more-or-less acceptable.
There are ninety-nine non-Psalms, shifting and changing words an tenses such that they are new writings due to various avoidances of pronouns in reference to God. They thus fall into a language which is not English, and which violates the original language. If they really wanted to avoid "masculine" pronouns, thus creating paraphrases, they should have played around with the metric Psalters of the Calvinists, and "de-sexed" them, because metric Psalms are at best paraphrases, albeit sometimes quite good devotional literature/poetry in their own right. This falls into a place where on could say that this tampers with Scripture. Revelation 22:18-19 can properly be understood to apply to the whole Bible, and frankly even want the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be messed with; even if they are not canonical Scripture in the sense of the rest of the accepted cannon. The unacceptable Psalms are: 2-4, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 27-31, 33-35, 37, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62-64, 66-69, 72, 73, 75-78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 91, 93-100, 102-108, 110, 111, 113-121, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 142, 144-150
There are eighteen dubious Psalms. These Psalms are mostly due to “Politically Correct” switching of singulars to plurals to avoid "masculine" pronouns. They are: 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 32, 36, 41, 49, 53, 56, 65, 109, 112, 126, 137
There are thirty-three more or less acceptable Psalms in the new hymnal. They are: 6 , 21, 26, 38, 39, 45, 51, 52, 54, 59, 61, 70, 71, 74, 79, 80, 83, 86, 88-90, 92, 101, 122, 124, 129, 131, 133, 134, 139-141, 143
Commitment to the cause of Christ
Dr. Jeffray Greene
These are points to ponder. There are two types of people who will read this article. The first are those who, for the lack of a better label, are historically orthodox in their Lutheran understanding of the use of Scripture. These folk believe something is amiss in the church today because values and understandings they thought were pretty sure, tried and true, are up for discussion and perhaps change. The other folk are those who want to see the church move in a different and new direction, away from what they consider an over-zealous use of the law. Many in this roughly defined group believe that the law has been used as a means of intimidation and exclusion and that use in this way needs to be corrected. We are, after all, saved by grace through faith apart from works of the law. Yet, in order to promote their cause, they too find themselves, of necessity, using law to make their point, even though ‘grace’ is their primary proclamation.
I would like to add a different dimension in this discussion. Recently, in a sermon preached on the Fifth Chapter Matthew text, where Jesus was instructing His disciples about divorce, an interesting point for our discussion was made. “Save the cause of adultery,” Jesus said, “divorce is a sin.” The sermon pointed out that this could apply to all relationships, not just marriages. In today’s world, relationships are discarded for almost any, and sometimes seemingly every reason. Can the breaking of any relationship be brought within the boundaries of what Jesus was saying? If a child ‘divorces’ a parent, if a member of a congregation ‘divorces’ a congregation, save for a perversion of the relationship, is it unlawful, is it a sin?
In a recent essay, written by a prominent member of the ELCA, he said we should, “call for a communal rather than an issue driven ecclesiology.” This means we should stay together no matter what and not let issues divide us in the midst of even heated debates. It can be argued from Jesus’ statement, that when members of a congregation or the denomination flee for personal reasons, it is a divorce from the congregation or denomination. As members, we commit ourselves not only to the Lord, but also to one another. As the divorce rate has escalated in our contemporary culture, we can see a ripple effect of divorce of individuals who separate themselves from the church with their membership. Many flee commitment, much in the same way many flee marriage for any number of unacceptable reasons. We are called to remain in the relationship until death parts us, that is, unless adultery is involved. Yes there is grace, but that is always conditional upon repentance and forgiveness.
The question in the church today is whether or not what is being proposed, promoted, and sought after is ‘adultery,’ that is a perversion of the true faith. This is no small matter to dwell upon. In the tension between those who find unacceptable practices that they deem contrary to their understanding of Scripture, versus those who believe the old understood values offered as Scriptural are themselves unacceptable, finding the place where faithfulness can be agreed upon and lived is difficult. It is this tension in which we now live.
Contrasting the use of the law, i.e., remaining in a communal ecclesiology, that is, working through our differences together, versus the question of whether or not remaining with a church that is using questionable tactics and promoting questionable materials is not unlike facing the exception clause in a marital relationship by the one who was offended. There is a new theology being offered, does it cross the line? Or, to put it into the more familiar traditional language, is it heresy?
As with every generation in the age of the Fall, we battle against holding to the truth revealed in Jesus Christ, versus the onslaught of the devil, who has always been a liar. Picking up our things and walking away is not something that should be done lightly, even if many have done just that. Instead, we are in the relationships we are in and we are all called to be faithful to God’s calling on our life to be a shining light. For the orthodox, there is the call to remain as long as possible for the sake of others. Our contrasting culture declares that its okay if we don’t like something to just leave. It is exactly when we take this untenable situation seriously that we all discover what it means to be a part of the royal priesthood of all believers, called to serve, rather than be served. As has been true throughout the history of the ELCA, we are in the midst of significant dynamics that impact us not only now, but will impact future generations.
To all our readers, I encourage you to remain faithful to the Lord’s calling in your life and to walk through the tensions in our church leaning wholly on the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct you. Although it has been our goal from the beginning to encourage faithfulness, we have not been gifted with a prophetic utterance as to where all that is plaguing our church is taking us. We do know that God has promised to work all things for glory for those who love Him, so that promise is sure. But between these times and the final time, our resolve should be to remain faithful to the One who has obtained salvation for us all, the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.