Canadian Lutheran vote on same sex blessings

[IowaLutheran]

The ELCIC, which is the ELCA's Canadian counterpart, has voted to not allow same sex blessings. Given that Canadians are usually more liberal about such matters, if they don't allow it, I doubt the ELCA will either.


http://www.elcic.ca/

[Protoevangel]

Thanks for the news, IowaLutheran!

I really, really wish I could say that made me happy. But considering the way the ELCA and ELCIC look at and interpret Scripture, it makes me wonder if this really isn't just a form of discrimination and inconcistency in that context. Does that even make sense? Maybe, though, it is indeed a good thing, a line drawn stating that things have finally gone too far. I don't know, I'll just have to keep praying and waiting.

[IowaLutheran]

But considering the way the ELCA and ELCIC look at and interpret Scripture, it makes me wonder if this really isn't just a form of discrimination and inconcistency in that context. Does that even make sense?

I think I understand you but I want to make sure - are you saying, for example, that this action would be inconsistent with how the ELCA views Biblical texts on women in church?

[Protoevangel]

I think I understand you but I want to make sure - are you saying, for example, that this action would be inconsistent with how the ELCA views Biblical texts on women in church?
That's basically along the lines of what I was thinking. But not just women pastors, really I meant it as a more general observation of much of what I see comming from on top; the words of Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, statements from various synod bishops, The Lutheran, from many of the professors, and the general attitudes I saw reflected in the last couple Synod Assemblies that I've attended. FWIW, it is really just an observation, not an attack.

[Full_Moon]

The ELCIC, which is the ELCA's Canadian counterpart, has voted to not allow same sex blessings. Given that Canadians are usually more liberal about such matters, if they don't allow it, I doubt the ELCA will either.


http://www.elcic.ca/


I don't understand how they figure they can vote on what God's law is.. (that is what it comes down to, at least the 3 clergy I spoke to about it admit to). The ones who allowed the vote to take place gave wordly excuses... makes me sad.

[AngelusSax]

I don't understand how they figure they can vote on what God's law is.. (that is what it comes down to, at least the 3 clergy I spoke to about it admit to). The ones who allowed the vote to take place gave wordly excuses... makes me sad.

Probably pulls from that part of Scripture where Jesus tells Peter that "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

If Peter is a stand-in for the Church (the overall Christian Church), then the Church gets to decide, and that tends to mean votes when it's not a dictatorship.

[Full_Moon]

Probably pulls from that part of Scripture where Jesus tells Peter that "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."

If Peter is a stand-in for the Church (the overall Christian Church), then the Church gets to decide, and that tends to mean votes when it's not a dictatorship.

You know, I really don't understand that scripture. But it can't mean that the church gets to decide because ... (where do I start??)

"Not a single letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, shall pass from the law" -Christ

"I have not come to abolish the Law, Heaven and earth will pass away before a single letter of the law passes away" (loose quote of Christ).

If God's Law is determined by us, then it is not God's Law, but our own law. If we can tell God what His Law is, then why did he bother telling us what it is????

Again: If we get to decide, then why don't we decide to allow pedifiles? After all, there are higher rates of pedifiles in our society than homosexuals.

Similarily, We might as well buy the "it's in my nature" arguement to apply to theives, murderers and all sinners who also justify themselves each time they sin. It is the nature of a theif to steal and a murderer to murder, therefore how can we blame them? (sorry, I am getting sarcastic here)

Point: It's BS. No one has the right to vote on God's Law. Not because of reasoning, but because God says so.

[RayJGentry]

I think this issue in the Lutheran Church is a prime example of politics influencing faith rather than faith influencing politics. The higher-ups are liberal politically, which honestly i think it is fin. I think that a Christian can have a faith stance and a seperate political stance on an issue like this. But because they don't want to seem hypocritical they decided that their faith must be in line with it because it strengthens thier personal stance.

I think that on the gay marriage issue a Lutheran (or Christian) can admit that it's quite reasonable for the United States to allow it, while taking the stance that it should not be allowed within the denomination. I think it's a problem of an identity issue for a very socially minded (and liberal) church trying to justify seemingly conflicting beliefs.

God's Peace, Love, Wisdom and JOY!
Spankin' the Devil,

Ray J Gentry IV

[ottaia]

Why is it that we can have all kinds of Lutheran theologians tell us that the Biblical understanding of Homosexuality is not our understanding of Homosexuality and that the Biblical witness is not applicable to us and still people presist on remaining in their ignorence?

http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/pdf/background.pdf

[Protoevangel]

Why is it that the modern generation of ELCA Theologians think that they are so much smarter and wiser than all the generations of Theologians throughout the history of the church?

[AngelusSax]

Why is it that as more time passes some people think it is impossible for new generations of thinkers and theologians to correct possible mistakes of past ones?

[Protoevangel]

Why is it that as more time passes some people think it is impossible for new generations of thinkers and theologians to correct possible mistakes of past ones?
:wave: Hi Angelus,

I went through Journey Together Faithfully (see ottaia's link), parts one and two, twice each; and even led a study on part two in my church. I wanted to believe what was presented, but the studies were deeply and fatally flawed in so many ways.

It is not at all impossible to correct past mistakes, but the burden of proof is on the one wanting to make the change. Prove the traditional understanding is in error, using Scripture and plain reason, and that the innovations are keeping with Scripture, and we'll talk. This is no less than the standard that Martin Luther and the Lutheran reformers held themselves to. No change was made that did not correct an abuse or error, and the changes all stood the test of Scripture.

I ask you ottaia, Angelus, proove to me that I can act on my sexual urges, both heterosexual and homosexual urges, without sin. If it is true, please proove it to me. My flesh would be so much happier. But it must be purely Scriptural proof... As much as my flesh wants to be let loose, I cannot abandon my conscience, which is bound to Scripture, to approve of what is sinful. To forgive yes, but not to approve.

[AngelusSax]

I ask you ottaia, Angelus, proove to me that I can act on my sexual urges, both heterosexual and homosexual urges, without sin.

I can actually only ask a question here. Did Solomon sin in having that many wives as well as concubines? By today's standards, we would say yes, as he was not monogamous, but does the Bible ever say that was a sin on Solomon's part?

PS: You say the studies were flawed. Might help your case if you showed the flaw, rather than just making a statement and then not backing it up. Also might help me to understand.

I don't think anyone is saying you can act on an urge to rape someone or something like that, of either gender (not saying you have those urges in the first place). The question boils down to this:

Can a homosexual couple truly love one another, or is it all about lust? If it is the former, and God is love, well you see where that can go. If it is the latter, then they're just like heterosexuals for the most part today, except many heterosexuals can and do "marry" one another so they don't "burn" with their passion (and the divorce rate goes up after a while when the passion dies down and the marriage is shown to them to have been a passion-sham from the beginning).

Was the Biblical writing against homosexuality written as such because it was a degrading act to do for the civilization of the time (i.e. the Israelites)? Was it written as such because it's a simple moral absolute? Was it written as such because it is impossible to truly love one of the same gender in that way? Was it written as such for religious-temple reasons? A combination of the above?

Whatever the reason, I don't doubt there was one. I just wish I knew. And if it is true that two men or two women can truly love one another, and they wish to share their intimacies as an expression of that love, in private, then I won't even try to stand in their way. If it is all about lust, well then we're in the same territory as heterosexual lust, and neither should be condoned nor blindly ignored. Sadly, the different-gender kind of lust is often ignored, if for no other reason than the homosexuality debate takes up so much space and time that we just don't get around to seeing what else is going on that's hindering the push toward shalom.

(And love here is not the mushy-feelings-emotional-love that we tend to focus on, but agape or as close to it as humanly possible love. The absolute true kind.)

[Protoevangel]

I can actually only ask a question here. Did Solomon sin in having that many wives as well as concubines? By today's standards, we would say yes, as he was not monogamous, but does the Bible ever say that was a sin on Solomon's part?
My answer would be yes, it was sinful, the Bible details sinful actions of many without a direct, immediate condemnation, but that is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. The question as to whether or not ‘A’ is sinful is not pertinent to the question as to whether ‘B’ is sinful.

PS: You say the studies were flawed. Might help your case if you showed the flaw, rather than just making a statement and then not backing it up. Also might help me to understand.
That would take a whole new thread (or book), which I may begin, because I do recognize the deep and disturbing errors in JTF. But the fact is that was not directly supportive to my main point. The point was (in reply to your post), that it is the person proposing change that has the burden to prove the existing error, and how this new view or practice is "more" Scriptural. The reason I mentioned JTF was to show that this is not an issue I take lightly, or flippantly disregard, but one that is truly close to my heart.

I don't think anyone is saying you can act on an urge to rape someone or something like that, of either gender (not saying you have those urges in the first place). The question boils down to this:
Yea, rape isn't really part of the discussion at hand.

Can a homosexual couple truly love one another, or is it all about lust?
Of course they can love one another. Any person can potentially love any another person. That love does not automatically make sex the right choice, though.

If it is the former, and God is love, well you see where that can go.
This is turning the word 'love' into a weasel word (equivocation). This is poor argumentation, and logically flawed.

For man, love is mercurial; but the Love God shows is so incomprehensibly unconditional that He chose to come into His creation to die for us all, even those who ultimately reject His gift. No love that can be attributed to man can be in any way comparable to who God is.

If it is the latter, then they're just like heterosexuals for the most part today,
Exactly. Is there any question there? Are any of us free from sin? Just because one is not free from sin, should another’s sin be called non-sin?

except many heterosexuals can and do "marry" one another so they don't "burn" with their passion
As is explained in Scripture. If you need references, I will be happy to provide them.

(and the divorce rate goes up after a while when the passion dies down and the marriage is shown to them to have been a passion-sham from the beginning).
Once again, covered by Scripture. If you need references, I will be happy to provide them.

Was the Biblical writing against homosexuality written as such because it was a degrading act to do for the civilization of the time (i.e. the Israelites)? Was it written as such because it's a simple moral absolute? Was it written as such because it is impossible to truly love one of the same gender in that way? Was it written as such for religious-temple reasons? A combination of the above?
This is an important question, and one that will have to be answered unequivocally, assuredly, and in a scrupulously Scriptural manner for the changes, such as is being proposed by some so-called "Theologians", can even remotely be considered orthodox. The answer is as involved as the question is important. As involved as the answer is, Paul explains it simply in the last half of the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans.

Whatever the reason, I don't doubt there was one. I just wish I knew.
I believe that you really do want to know. This is why I like you Angelus.

And if it is true that two men or two women can truly love one another, and they wish to share their intimacies as an expression of that love, in private, then I won't even try to stand in their way.
And no one should stand in their way. Stopping them from committing the act will not bring them any closer to Jesus. They need to know the love that Jesus has for them, and to know that they are forgiven if they just believe. They must be loved. They must be taught the Gospel, and the Law. The Law alone will make them despair, and turn from God. The Gospel with no proper understanding of the Law will make them self-confident and begin to think that good works are superfluous.

May they yet fall into sin again? Of course, Christians fall into the lusts of the flesh. David fell into adultery. Peter fell when he denied Christ, and when he withdrew from the Galatians because the Galatians were uncircumcised. Will they ever fulfill the Law in their flesh? No, of course not, none of us ever do, what I mean to say is that they, you, I, should take the Spirit for our guide and resist the flesh. That is the most we shall ever be able to do. Obey the Spirit and fight against the flesh, and rise again and again when we fall.

Our first consideration must be the comfort of troubled consciences; not by approving of sin, but by declaring the repentant one's sins forgiven.

If it is all about lust, well then we're in the same territory as heterosexual lust, and neither should be condoned nor blindly ignored.
Fully agreed. But I would add that no matter what the motivation is, that motivation does not make the action right if the action is condemned by a Holy God. It may be cliché, but it is still true: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Sadly, the different-gender kind of lust is often ignored, if for no other reason than the homosexuality debate takes up so much space and time that we just don't get around to seeing what else is going on that's hindering the push toward shalom.

(And love here is not the mushy-feelings-emotional-love that we tend to focus on, but agape or as close to it as humanly possible love. The absolute true kind.)
About different-gender lust being ignored, maybe I am sheltered, but I disagree with you here. If a man or woman stated that they were multi-partnered or openly adulterous, and declared that this was their lifestyle, and expected this lifestyle to be blessed, or thought they could still be ordained, I think they would be setting themselves up for disappointment.

Now, what brought up the homosexuality debate anyway? Was it the traditionalists trying to make a change to the understanding of homosexuality from an officially accepted "blessed" lifestyle to something less? I don't see that as what brought this all up. I seem to remember something closer to ELCA leadership promoting the official blessing of same-sex marriage and the ordaining of men and women in homosexual relationships. So the blame on the homosexuality debate cannot be placed on the traditionalists. After all, the ELCA has already acted to welcome gay and lesbian people to participate fully in the life of its congregations and to reject discrimination, assault, and harassment of gay and lesbian persons. This is all good and profitable. Going farther than that will indeed spark a great debate every time. If it is a clear Scriptural mandate however, to do that, then the innovators should be able to present a profoundly comprehensive and clearly positive Scriptural argument to justify this change. Without that, the debate should be expected, and welcome by those who still want to do God’s will and not man’s.

[AngelusSax]

For man, love is mercurial; but the Love God shows is so incomprehensibly unconditional that He chose to come into His creation to die for us all, even those who ultimately reject His gift. No love that can be attributed to man can be in any way comparable to who God is.

For man, love is largely mercurial. But there are some capable of at least the human-level of agape. I hold that it is God who puts that in them, and not something they have of their own, but they do have it. When one is willing to do anything for another person, regardless of how that other person treats them back, that is not mercurial love, and I have seen that unconditional love displayed first hand. Not very often, but I have seen it.

Fully agreed. But I would add that no matter what the motivation is, that motivation does not make the action right if the action is condemned by a Holy God. It may be cliché, but it is still true: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

You're right, it is cilché. :) I'll ask more/reply more later, but I have a bank run I gotta do now before they close. ttfn. (Did I just say ttfn? Yeah, I guess I did say ttfn...)