There are significant differences of opinion within Christianity as a whole as concerns the following ELCA amendment from some time back.
To call upon the ELCA to underscore the call for economic initiatives by this church and its members in the peace not walls campaign. Such initiatives, in consultation with the Evangelical Lutheran church in Jordan and the Holy Land could include purchasing of products of Palestinian providers and exploration of the feasibility of refusing to buy products produced in Israeli settlements. Also to be explored is the entire investment activity activity by this church. Examination of investment would exclude the option of divestiture.
It created quite a firestorm, here is a summary of comments Pondering Pastor received after posting the amendment in his blog.
I’ve been told that God will only bless those nations protecting Israel. I’ve been told that the ELCA position with respect to Israel and Palestine is the primary cause of conflict in all matters within the ELCA. I’ve been told that the ELCA supports terrorism, the destruction of the United States, and teaching children to prefer death over life. I’ve been told that we need to consider the spiritual implications of boycotts of Israel.
Yikes, it seems many seem to forget, some Palestinians are brothers and sister in Christ too.
The question then becomes, despite huge differences in opinion, is unity in Christ still possible? Up until this morning, my answer would have been of course it is. We are not talking about the essentials of faith, its not a soteriological matter. However… an interesting argument was presented by Carl Braaten as concerns another matter, which to me presents some very strong parallels. I don’t know that I agree with him, but it sure warrants careful study and thought.
He states an excellent summary of my prior and current beliefs, which he believes to be in error. Its so well stated, I’m just copying verbatim.
….matters having to do with the laws and commandments of God, and not with the core principles of the gospel, cannot be church-dividing and are not basic to church unity. Matters that fall under the rubric of the “left hand of God,” namely, the will and rule of God in the orders of creation (political, economic, and social structures, including marriage, family, and sexuality), are not central to the gospel as such and therefore cannot be foundational for church unity.
And his response:
The church is founded upon the Word of God, which includes what it believes about God’s activity in both creation and redemption, both law and gospel, both the kingdom on the left and on the right.
He then goes on with some pretty hard hitting examples:
The church is not founded on only one half of the Word of God. Consider this: the Lutheran World Federation raised the task of resisting apartheid in South Africa to a matter of status confessionis. This meant that opposing apartheid becomes a necessary implication of the church’s confession of faith. The white Lutheran congregations protested that the racial struggles in South Africa had nothing to do with the gospel, but only with the kingdom of God on the left hand. Ergo, the struggle for racial justice, whatever side one takes on the issue, cannot constitute a status confessionis for church fellowship. If the LWF was right in its declaration, it shows that the gospel cannot be separated from the law, the kingdom on the right from the kingdom on the left. Lutheran Churches in the United States faced the same issue in the struggle for civil rights when the system of racial segregation meant that Blacks and Whites were not welcome to celebrate Holy Communion together. The Lutheran Churches in Germany under Hitler were confronted by the same problem. The theologians supporting National Socialism declared that its anti-Semitic policies regarding the Jews have nothing to do with the gospel, therefore they have no bearing on church unity and fellowship. The Lutherans in Chile under General Pinochet faced the same kind of issue.
Indeed, these are compeling arguments, but they seem mostly based upon man’s reasoning, as concerns unity. While I agree with the points of view, I find it difficult to back it up as a standalone. I find the use of the word “If” more than a bit troubling.
If the LWF was right in its declaration, it shows that the gospel cannot be separated from the law, the kingdom on the right from the kingdom on the left.
