The latest tempest
Check out this news report, complete with accompanying video coverage.
It seems that a Baptist Church in Watertown, NY has “fired” a Sunday School teacher who has been serving for 54+ years. Why? Well, the controversy is stemming from the slant that it’s because she’s a woman. It seems that the “firing” letter quoted 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The press has now gotten ahold of this, and the general tenor of the coverage, as well as the reaction (as can be seen at digg.com), is to paint this as just another way that “fundamentalists” are “misinterpreting” a “book of fiction” in order to “subjugate” women.
Frankly, what offends me the most, theologically speaking, is the misinformed position that is at the heart of giving the pastor in question the 8th Commandment benefit of the doubt. If he truly had her removed from teaching SS because of what’s stated in 1 Tim 2:11-14, then I would have to say that he is wrong — but not for the reasons that are being given in all of the controversial coverage & reaction.
If the “wronged” woman was teaching children in SS, then she was working under the authority of the parents - i.e., a 4th Commandment thing. This is all well and good. There’s nothing wrong with women teaching children — it doesn’t run afoul of the authority issue explained by St. Paul. (We’ll just set aside, for the time being, the fact that SS as it is currently “done” in most Lutheran Churches is doing our children a grave disservice, as this Methodistic innovation actually undermines good, solid, Lutheran catechesis…)
If, however, she was teaching adults (and more specifically, adult males), then it is a problem, as that type of teaching is part of the authority vested in the pastoral office - i.e., (IIRC) a 1st Commandment thing. This, then, is in direct opposition to that outlined by St. Paul.
Vocation is a powerful doctrine, and it’s one that is woefully misunderstood because it’s been woefully under-taught. A proper understanding of vocation would yield many “controversies” (such as this one) moot.
I’d be willing to wager that the vast majority of folks who are offended by this “injustice” are in such a state for all the wrong reasons. And that’s a terrible thing in and of itself…
-ghp
Sensitivity
So, I attended a sensitivity workshop yesterday. Working on a university campus, these things are unavoidable from time to time. And to be honest, it really wasn’t all that bad, especially compared to some that I’ve been exposed to at other places of employment. But I digress…
It was pretty standard “awareness-enhancing”/”diversity” type of stuff, but there was one exercise where I’m sure that my response raised some internal eyebrows. More specifically, we had to choose one of four things that we would least like our children to be. The choices? Drug Addict. Mentally Ill. Convicted Felon. Gay/Lesbian.
I was the only one that chose “Gay/Lesbian”… 
Fortunately, I had a little time to come up with my reasons why, as we were required to give a brief explanation. Now, I think that I generally did ok with my explanation, but I’m not totally pleased in retrospect, especially as I would’ve liked to done a better job of preemptively addressing the implicit disapproval that was shown by the folks who felt the need to couch their answers by explicitly stating that they would (of course/obviously) have no problem if their kids were gay/lesbian.
I based my answer on two things:
- Social - in our current culture being gay/lesbian is not an easy row to hoe, even though in many circles it’s very accepted. There’s still a lot of sinful behavior directed against gays/lesbians. Frankly, I wouldn’t want either of my kids to end up like Matthew Sheppard, or any of the other folks who’ve been beaten by misguided folks who thought that physical violence was an acceptable response.
- Theological - I clearly stated that I also had theological/religious reasons for not wanting my kids to be gay/lesbian. For good/bad/right/wrong, I didn’t elaborate the reasons why, but just left it at the statement that I had strongly held, faith-driven reasons for my choice.
I wish I had been a little more explicit in better fleshing out my reasons/thought processes. Fortunately, as I have my own little forum here, I can do so now!
- The other three choices (drug addict, mentally ill, convicted felon) are all things that are generally recognized by most reasonable folks as things for which help can & should be provided. IOW, they are viewed as negative states that must be addressed.
- This is not the case with being gay/lesbian, if you are approaching it from a truly Biblical perspective — IOW, that which the Bible clearly shows to be sinful, is something that society increasingly views as ok & even to be celebrated rather than prayerfully addressed.
- There are (rightly) medical & support options for addicts & the mentally ill. We can, and must, be compassionate in helping these folks overcome these circumstances that result from our sinful condition. The same is true of rehabilitated felons — many folks realize that convicted (and rehabilitated) felons need help in rebuilding their lives.
- Society doesn’t give the same benefit to those whose lives are impacted by the sin that is homosexuality. I don’t want my kids to have society encourage their sinful tendencies any more than is absolutely unavoidable. I wouldn’t want them to be unnecessarily tempted by societal approval of over-drinking and/or over-eating, either.
- It doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t love my kids. I will always love my children. I may not always like them and/or their choices/responses, but I will always love them & try to faithfully execute my vocational responsibilities re: their spiritual well-being. That I wouldn’t want them to be gay/lesbian should never be misconstrued/misrepresented as a lack, or withdrawal, of love. Approval, possibly/certainly, but love, never.
I guess it largely boils down to this: Current “tolerance” & “sensitivities” seem to dictate that it is wrong (or at the very least ignorant) to view all four things as negative/unfortunate conditions that need to be addressed with compassionate support & concern for folks’ temporal & eternal well-being.
I pray that, should the opportunity present itself again, I’m able to more resolutely confess based upon that which has been given to me!
-ghp
Vapid heart-utterances
Every so often, a blog posting comes along that is the perfect balance between content and presentation. It’s so good that two of the first emotions that flash through your mind are anger & frustration, at the fact that someone else thought to write so well on a subject so (obviously, in retrospect) meaningful. And the post doesn’t have to be lengthy to achieve this status. No, it just has to be good.
Ryan, over at Backward Kingdom, has produced such a post — “Taste and see” — in which he deals with the beauty and utility of the Psalms as a practical prayer book. Obviously, the Psalms are worthy of such lofty consideration - they are Just. That. Good. It shouldn’t be necessary, but it certainly helps to be reminded of that fact every once in a while.
Now, even if all he did was briefly remind us of that fact, Ryan would’ve done right by us. But he not only nailed the content requirement, he also nailed the presentation aspect, by putting into wonderfully meaning (and snarky!) words something that I wish I had written, namely (emphasis mine):
I can’t remember what it was that got me digging into “the Bible’s prayerbookâ€, but once I started I couldn’t quit. I’d try to pray with my own vapid heart-utterances, but it wasn’t cutting it.
I’ve always thought extemporaneous prayer to be a very, very dangerous thing. It’s almost impossible to do well, but yet it’s almost impossible to ignore the temptation to do it. It’s easy enough for me, as I dislike it — I’d rather stand on the shoulders of folks more theologically astute than I — though others seem not to have a problem with it, and even view it as a litmus test of sorts. That’s why I just am beside myself with glee about being able to add a phrase like “vapid heart-utterances” to my arsenal! It just works so well on so many levels. I really do wish I had thought of it myself…
Kudos to Ryan — I think he’ll do quite well at the Fort!
-ghp
Decadent Pietism
“Decadent Pietism”
What a wonderfully evocative phrase.
It comes via a solid essay/paper from the Rev. Dr. John Pless — Liturgy and Pietism: Then and Now. Here’s an excerpt to whet your appetite:
Gerhard Forde has coined the term “decadent pietism” for the contemporary replacement of the pietism of Spener and Francke. Decadent pietism indulges the “felt needs” of the potential believer, offering a cafeteria of religious options, encouraging imagination and creativity in preaching. Sermons must be practical, offering solutions for the problems of daily life. While the sermons of classical pietism at least dealt with issues of sin and grace, the sermons of the decadent pietists are shaped by therapeutic concerns. Self-realization replaces salvation and right feelings overshadow right doctrine.
In “decadent pietism” religion has become more about the therapeutic than the salvific. Satan, no doubt, is cackling with glee…
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
