2/13 Rally for food justice

Last Wednesday, after wandering through San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza and accidentally walking into the federal office building (though the security screening did hamper my "accidental" spirit), I finally located the California Food Justice Coalition's rally concerning the Farm Bill. The event was entitled: "Food Advocates Tell Pelosi: This Valentine's Day Have a Heart. Give Us Food and a Farm Bill We'll Love" and was located exactly where it should have been: smack dab in the middle of the weekly farmers' market.

I know what you are asking. What's the US Farm Bill? Why does this seminarian care and why should I? In a nutshell, the Farm Bill is a piece of federal legislation that determines who gets farming subsidies and how much they receive, what kinds of crops are grown and how they are distributed. It allocates money for nutrition programs in schools and low-income communities and tackles questions regarding food access. One shocking fact I learned listening to a speaker at the rally: West Oakland is a community of 30,000 people. There are 53 liquor stores in the area and not one grocery store. No wonder it is difficult for people to make healthy choices! A reformed Farm Bill could help to address this and similar inequalities, insuring that all people have access to organic and locally-grown foods. This rally was not simply about food or farming, but about creating communities that are healthy and just---the kind of communities God wants for us. For more information visit www.cafoodjustice.org.

J-term border crossings

During the last week of January, I participated in a conference called "Developing Hearts that Yearn for Justice" in Tijuana, Mexico. The event brought together over 100 representatives from eight different faith traditions to learn about the reality of life on the US-Mexico border and the brokenness of current US immigration policy. The ELCA was well-represented both in the organizing committee and event sponsors. We stayed at Casa del Migrante, a home for migrant men, the majority of whom have recently been deported from lives in Southern California. Speakers from Mexico, Costa Rica and across the United States offered frameworks to help participants understand the issues and imagine our possible responses as people of faith. One afternoon, we visited a community center, bakery and beauty shop organized by a group of women as an alternative to making a livelihood digging through trash in the city dump. We also visited, Cafe Justo, a coffee cooperative based in Southern Mexico, but with a new roasting facility in Tijuana. We learned how important responsible consuming is to producers.

Throughout the conference, I found myself easily frustrated---frustrated by how poorly the United States treats immigrants, frustrated by the complexity of the issues, frustrated by days consumed by talking without action, frustrated by the fact that I was one of only a handful of seminary students in attendance. I know how the story will turn out. God wants so much more for us than what we have managed to create for ourselves thus far. But, I continue to worry. I don't know how things will change, only that they will, and that somehow, a more just world will take the God-centered engagement and creativity of us all. For more information about the conference and on-going ways to be involved in immigration issues visit www.Hearts4Justice.org.

Oregon Bishop Writes to PLTS about Homosexuality Resolution

Dear Door Devotees,

Your Blog Master has invited me to write a little something as a bishop of the ELCA relative to the "Landahl Resolution" coming out of the August 2007 Churchwide Assembly. I am glad to do so. My name is Dave Brauer-Rieke and I am bishop of the Oregon Synod.

The so called "Landahl Resolution" "encourages synods, synodical bishops, and the presiding bishop to refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining those rostered leaders in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship who have been called and rostered in this church." (http://www.elca.org/assembly/votingmatters/results.html) The ever present Lutheran question is "What does this mean?"

First it is important to recognize that this resolution was embraced by our Churchwide Assembly in the context of our Church's ongoing conversation over the rostering of Gay or Lesbian pastors in mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships. The COB (Conference of Bishops) recognizes that this is a difficult conversation for our Church. We discern together within a triangle of justice concerns, traditional moral perspectives and the fragile gift of Christian unity. (This is my language, not necessarily that of the COB as a whole.) It is understandable that individuals and groups within the Church may advocate primarily from one perspective of another. This is actually helpful in our churchwide conversation. Our charge as bishops, however, is to keep the whole triangle always before us.

The Landahl Resolution is understood as a "sense" motion, not a legislative one. This is to say that nothing in the practice or policies of the Church has been changed here, but rather that what we have is the sentiment of the Assembly that we don't want to fall off the tightrope as our conversation continues. As a bishop I hear in this resolution that our Church doesn't want to solve this issue through formal, disciplinary actions such as those involving Pastor Bradley Schmeling. Rather, we want to continue down our chosen path of mutual conversation and discernment. Furthermore, we as a Church believe we are on a track to find greater clarity on this issue at our 2009 Assembly and so we understand the Landahl Resolution to be a time limited pastoral word. It extends from now until further, more permanent, decisions are made by the 2009 Assembly.

Individual bishops will undoubtedly interpret the nuances of this resolutions differently. This is as it should be. We are all committed to oversight within our diverse synodical contexts. However, our mutual commitment as bishops is to stay within the same ballpark for the sake of good order within the Church as a whole. The Landahl Resolution is not a call to disregard the current position of the ELCA relative to our expectations of rostered leaders. It is, rather, just what it purports to be; a call for prayerful and pastoral decision making while we continue to walk together in our discernment process.

My sense is as a Church we are weary of this discussion. Yet, I am impressed by our ability to walk faithfully and patiently with one another. My hope and expectation is that we will soon reach greater clarity for ourselves in this matter.

Communion for Whom?

Who should communion be open to?

Should communion be restricted to:
1) Baptized and Confirmed Christians
2) Baptized Christians who have taken a first communion class
3) Baptized Christians
4) Anyone who believes the words "Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins."

In Living Tradition class led by Dr. Michael Aune on October 9, 2007, the issue of communion came up as it was briefly discussed on the last page of a reading written by Dr. Jane Strohl. This past Sunday, many members of this class had visited St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco where communion is open to everyone, baptized or unbaptized.

There appears to be some variation in communion practices throughout the ELCA. In some congregations, I have heard that crackers are mixed with grape juice and given to babies. Their point of view seems to be that communion is like baptism in that it is given to us by the grace of God, not out of any virtue or attribute of our own such as having attained a certain age. I would venture to say that in most, if not all Lutheran churches, a minimum of baptism is required for communion. Most seem to have a class beforehand, and some require members to be confirmed before celebrating communion.

As presented in class, some of these traditions go back to early Christian history where baptism and communion served as rites of passage for a group undergoing enormous persecutions.
They also likely go back to the heritage Lutherans share with the Roman Catholic Church.

When I first encountered the idea of babies receiving communion several years ago, I was shocked, but upon more thought have decided it is not so strange, though Luther might have objected in his day.

Luther writes on this sacrament in The Small Catechism that, "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and to drink, as it was instituted by Christ himself." The Last Supper is described by Luther:

"Our Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you: this do, in the remembrance of me.

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of you: this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

Responding to the question about what makes us worthy to receive it, Luther responds:

Fasting and bodily preparation are indeed a good external discipline; but he is truly worthy and well prepared, who believes these words: "Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins." But he who does not believe these words, or who doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words: "FOR YOU," require truly believing hearts.

Do babies believe that the body and blood are given for them? I tend to think that babies believe that almost anything is given for them.

A traditional reason given for priests not being allowed to marry is that in the early orthodox traditions, the original disciples were all male. The disciples were all likely baptized, but it's unclear whether any females were at the last supper. Splitting with this tradition of male-only disciples, communion has been opened up to both males and females. We now believe in a priesthood of all believers.

What belief is required for this communion and how do we know that we truly believe? In Luke 18:15-17, Jesus says that our belief is to be like a child's. I think there's no more trusting belief in the goodness of Christ's gift of communion than that of a child's. Furthermore, perhaps baptism is not required either. Christ said to a confessing criminal hanging with him on the cross, "I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with me." (Luke 23:40-43)

From my point of view, we do better to err on the side of generosity with Christ's love than to be stingy with Christ's love and forgiveness. I am reminded of the Parable of the Gold Coins in Luke 19:11-27, particularly verses 20-22. When asked what had been done with the coin given to him, the last servant says, "Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it hidden in a handkerchief. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take what is not yours and reap what you did not plant." In the parable, the master replies, "You bad servant! I will use your own words to condemn you! You know that I am a hard man, taking what is not mine and reaping what I have not planted."

Is it better for us to protect Jesus so that he is not profaned, or is it better for us to be overly generous with the love he has given us to share? Who should we open our communion to?

Genesis!

With any luck this site can become a location for vibrant community discussion. We encourage you to post on whatever topic you feel needs to be talked about.
Are you concerned by the school's theological views as manifested in the social justice committee? Do you want to speculate about the implications of the upcoming conference of bishops? Or are you curious as to which side-dishes are going to be brought to the next First Friday? It's all par for the (Frisbee) course!
If you'd like to become a contributer to this blog, simply write to admissions2@plts.edu.