Total Relief

[JADVirginia]

I am totally relieved that the proposal to permit the ordination of practicing gay clergy has been defeated. And for once, the ELCA did not take a wishy-washy stand by permitting special exceptions.:thumbsup:

Thoughts?

JADViginia

[cableguy]

I'm relieved as well, mostly that it's over. I'm sure the debate will go on and on. If you look at the news and current events thread, you'll see we're already being called bigots. If the vote went the other way I'm sure we would have been called much worse. No win situation when it comes to that.

[ByzantineDixie]

I guess my question is how long can the ELCA keep putting this off? How long will the nail biting continue? While I am very happy about the outcome of this vote...I just wonder if it is just postponing the inevitable. I pray not.

[GlowingFirefly]

I think the ELCA did good here.

I haven't heard people calling the ELCA "bigots" really, but I just hope that this whole thing will become yesterdays news so to speak at some point so that they world will start to leave us alone and accept us. Although that probably won't happen, at least not for a while yet. :sigh:

[Willy]

I would have wished that the vote would have been different, although admittedly the resolution had inherent problems. The closeness of the vote indicates that the future will bring full inclusion of practicing gays and lesbians.

[RedneckAnglican]

At least I won't have to change my signature for awhile...I'm quite relieved...the Church Council meeting this month would have bee VERY different if it had passed...

[Melethiel]

I'm relieved that it didn't pass this time - but the vote was too close for comfort. We haven't seen the last of this. They're going to keep trying until the vote passes. :(

[JADVirginia]

I'm relieved as well, mostly that it's over. I'm sure the debate will go on and on. If you look at the news and current events thread, you'll see we're already being called bigots. If the vote went the other way I'm sure we would have been called much worse. No win situation when it comes to that.

It amazes me. The ELCA struggled with the question for three years, all the while encouraging thoughtful and respectful dialogue. I guess that we don't even get goodie points for considering the issue!

[Melethiel]

I have now determined that the whole fuss made over the issue of ordaining gays was a coverup to slip the new hymnal through virtually unnoticed. :P

[JADVirginia]

I have now determined that the whole fuss made over the issue of ordaining gays was a coverup to slip the new hymnal through virtually unnoticed. :P

Alas ... the organist caught their treachery!!

[RedneckAnglican]

I have now determined that the whole fuss made over the issue of ordaining gays was a coverup to slip the new hymnal through virtually unnoticed. :P

now...which hymnal are we talking about...the new new red hymnal...the new old red hymnal...the old new red hymnal...or the old old red hymnal?...

[romaneagle13]

I am pleased that you all have been able to keep some stability in your church despite the controversy of this issue. It is tearing my church apart. I pray that yours will remain strong.

[ctobola]

That's exactly the reason I wish it would have passed. That probably would have lead to a split, but there's already a lot of dissatisfaction within the ELCA and having this hanging over our heads for another four years isn't going to enhance our ministry.

-Cloy


I'm relieved that it didn't pass this time - but the vote was too close for comfort. We haven't seen the last of this. They're going to keep trying until the vote passes. :(

[SPALATIN]

That's exactly the reason I wish it would have passed. That probably would have lead to a split, but there's already a lot of dissatisfaction within the ELCA and having this hanging over our heads for another four years isn't going to enhance our ministry.

-Cloy

Cloy,

This is not to pick on you as a Pastor, but think about this. By endorsing this you are saying that homosexuality is not sin. That is exactly what the leadership of the synod wants you to think. I don't condone turning these people away from the church because they need to hear God's word so that they may have the opportunity for repentance. I don't care if they are in a committed relationship. The bible speaks clearly that relations of this type are perverse and not the way that God created them.

The church should not tolerate the world culture. It should stand strong against that tide, but what I see the leadership of your synod doing is the very opposite. Your delegates spoke out in defeat of it. Since there is a need for a 2/3s majority it was a strong statement. If it only needed a simple majority it would have been rather weak.

We need to use Matt 18 as our guide to bringing sinners into the church. We need to give them the word but also let them know that sin is not tolerated. This goes for any synod. It doesn't matter if it is homosexuality or syncretism. both are wrong in God's eyes. I am not looking to pick a fight here and I didn't come to bash you or your synod, but to give a different perspective on these issues.

If the church were to give Gays the right to be ordained what message would that give the community? If your synod had approved same-sex unions wouldn't that support un-sinning sin? If it did not support that message then what does it say?

I guess I just don't understand those who consider scripture as not totally authoritative.

[Protoevangel]

This time, I think I understand where Cloy is comming from. I think he is saying that in the ELCA, it is probably going to happen anyway, and that the resulting split would be a good thing (those who want to follow God's Word would go their way, and those who want to follow the world would go their own). But by this relativly narrow defeat (and with conservatives slowly drizzling away) leaves the ELCA in a kind of limbo, still mixing the truth with the lies. If that is what he means, then I can almost agree with him on this one. It would be somewhat of a relief to have this over, and get back to our true mission, but it is not close to being over.

[SPALATIN]

This time, I think I understand where Cloy is comming from. I think he is saying that in the ELCA, it is probably going to happen anyway, and that the resulting split would be a good thing (those who want to follow God's Word would go their way, and those who want to follow the world would go their own). But by this relativly narrow defeat (and with conservatives slowly drizzling away) leaves the ELCA in a kind of limbo, still mixing the truth with the lies. If that is what he means, then I can almost agree with him on this one. It would be somewhat of a relief to have this over, and get back to our true mission, but it is not close to being over.

Dan,


So should the Psychiatrists take their coats and give the keys to the patients in the asylum on their way out? "These people are too sick for us to help so let's let them have their way here, they will anyways, and we can go find some people who will really benefit from our help."

Did Jesus say, "These people are hopeless. I can't get them to listen to me so I will just leave them alone and concentrate on those who are my real friends."? Seems to me that he died for all the people whether they wanted it or not and then he gave his Apostles their commission. He also told people to go and sin no more.


Not that I am not for getting on with the true mission, but I am also for fighting the liberal ideal to the end if necessary to keep things of God for God. So even with a "narrow victory" it is still a victory. Just because you feel that it will be inevitable doesn't mean you shouldn't fight them to the bitter end.

This just my perspective on what I believe is still part of the calling of his sheep.

[Protoevangel]

Dan,


So should the Psychiatrists take their coats and give the keys to the patients in the asylum on their way out? "These people are too sick for us to help so let's let them have their way here, they will anyways, and we can go find some people who will really benefit from our help."

Did Jesus say, "These people are hopeless. I can't get them to listen to me so I will just leave them alone and concentrate on those who are my real friends."? Seems to me that he died for all the people whether they wanted it or not and then he gave his Apostles their commission. He also told people to go and sin no more.


Not that I am not for getting on with the true mission, but I am also for fighting the liberal ideal to the end if necessary to keep things of God for God. So even with a "narrow victory" it is still a victory. Just because you feel that it will be inevitable doesn't mean you shouldn't fight them to the bitter end.

This just my perspective on what I believe is still part of the calling of his sheep.
If this is the case, shouldn't we all be one big happy synod? No LCMS, WELS, ELS, TAALC, etc. Just one big happy unionistic group teaching all kinds of different things? ;)

Maybe you are right. I am torn, and see strength and weakness in both positions. I am still with the ELCA, after all. But I say again, it would be a relief to have this ended. I am sure Paul would have considered it a relief to be released from prison, but that didn't stop him from completing his mission.

[SPALATIN]

If this is the case, shouldn't we all be one big happy synod? No LCMS, WELS, ELS, TAALC, etc. Just one big happy unionistic group teaching all kinds of different things? ;)

Maybe you are right. I am torn, and see strength and weakness in both positions. I am still with the ELCA, after all. But I say again, it would be a relief to have this ended. I am sure Paul would have considered it a relief to be released from prison, but that didn't stop him from completing his mission.

To me it shows that the Synod leadership has not convinced everyone that their agenda is good for the church. They did pass an "agree to disagree" platform on this subject which to me says that it probably will pass at the next convention.

So it begs the question if you know it is inevitable why stay if you would be against the measure? You know where I stand on unionism.

[DailyBlessings]

I am glad that they came to a conclusion, and in the way that they did. Even if I do not agree with the outcome.

[Protoevangel]

if you know it is inevitable why stay if you would be against the measure? You know where I stand on unionism.
If I left, I would be leaving hundreds of people who never get the Gospel from the pulpit. If I left, they would never have the chance to learn about what is so wrong in the synodical leadership. The ELCA (at least this congregation) is an open mission field that has been abandoned for too long.

[SPALATIN]

If I left, I would be leaving hundreds of people who never get the Gospel from the pulpit. If I left, they would never have the chance to learn about what is so wrong in the synodical leadership. The ELCA (at least this congregation) is an open mission field that has been abandoned for too long.

Dan,

I like your determination to keep fighting the fight. Perhaps if they were persuaded that what the ELCA leadership is really up to will be damaging to the church as a whole they will understand the need themselves to either leave or keep fighting against the world's culture as the ELCA leadership has become.

God's blessings on your mission

Pax Christi
Scott

[Willy]

This phantom "leadership" involves real people who are doing their best to be faithful. They may reach different conclusions than you but please don't dismiss them as a group of conspiracists who long to take the church down some heretical highway. Mark Hanson, our presiding bishop, is one of the most faithful, authentic leaders I have ever known. I am grateful for his heart, his pastoral sensitivity, his willingness to be prophetic. Does he (and I will say I) reach different conclusion than orthodox Missouri Synod people? Of course. WE aren't Missouri Synod people. If we were, we would have joined up with them.

[SPALATIN]

This phantom "leadership" involves real people who are doing their best to be faithful. They may reach different conclusions than you but please don't dismiss them as a group of conspiracists who long to take the church down some heretical highway. Mark Hanson, our presiding bishop, is one of the most faithful, authentic leaders I have ever known. I am grateful for his heart, his pastoral sensitivity, his willingness to be prophetic. Does he (and I will say I) reach different conclusion than orthodox Missouri Synod people? Of course. WE aren't Missouri Synod people. If we were, we would have joined up with them.

Ok, Willy, first of all I myself, do not belong to the Missouri Synod since I am not a Pastor or Church worker. I do attend churches in that synod and even have my membership still at one, but do not attend there because my wife does not like it. I even went to an ELS church last week and thoroughly enjoyed it.

As for this leadership in the ELCA. To whom or what are they being faithful? Are they being faithful to the scriptures? They have said that they hold to a historical-critical interpretation of them, but we all know what that means. It means that they can pick and choose which scriptures are inspired and which are not. I don't doubt theirs or your sincerity in what you think you are faithful to, but I doubt the ability of the leadership through this method to really determine what truth is. Is it objective or subjective?

This of course is only my opinion but my opinion is based on what I read and see and hear from those who attend or lead those churches.

[ottaia]

Ok, Willy, first of all I myself, do not belong to the Missouri Synod since I am not a Pastor or Church worker. I do attend churches in that synod and even have my membership still at one, but do not attend there because my wife does not like it. I even went to an ELS church last week and thoroughly enjoyed it.

As for this leadership in the ELCA. To whom or what are they being faithful? Are they being faithful to the scriptures? They have said that they hold to a historical-critical interpretation of them, but we all know what that means. It means that they can pick and choose which scriptures are inspired and which are not. I don't doubt theirs or your sincerity in what you think you are faithful to, but I doubt the ability of the leadership through this method to really determine what truth is. Is it objective or subjective?

This of course is only my opinion but my opinion is based on what I read and see and hear from those who attend or lead those churches.

God still speaks. God is speaking to us now. The close vote, IMO, says that we are close to hearing the word but have not heard it yet. Have we let our desires become idols? There are other theologians, not just ELCA theologians, who have found that the scriptures do not say what we have long thought they have said (Bess, Pastor I am Gay,1995, Palmer Publishing, Palmer, Alaska - Buss is a pastor in American Baptist Churches USA). How many times do we have to read Jonah before we begin to heed the voice of the Spirit?

[Protoevangel]

God still speaks. God is speaking to us now. The close vote, IMO, says that we are close to hearing the word but have not heard it yet.
Satan and his myriad servants also speak. Be careful which voice you are listening to.


Have we let our desires become idols?
Very pertinent question, very pertinent, indeed.


There are other theologians, not just ELCA theologians, who have found that the scriptures do not say what we have long thought they have said
Yes, we are so much smarter and more spiritual than all those who have come before us, aren't we?


(Bess, Pastor I am Gay,1995, Palmer Publishing, Palmer, Alaska - Buss is a pastor in American Baptist Churches USA). How many times do we have to read Jonah before we begin to heed the voice of the Spirit?
I wonder which spirit you are asking us to listen to, ottaia.

[Tetzel]

I have now determined that the whole fuss made over the issue of ordaining gays was a coverup to slip the new hymnal through virtually unnoticed. :P

LOL

[Willy]

Thanks, Ottaia. Nice to have you back. I appreciate your sentiment.

[AngelusSax]

Yes, we are so much smarter and more spiritual than all those who have come before us, aren't we?

Maybe we are, maybe we're not. We owe it to ourselves and to our faith to not just blindly follow absolutely everything that came down in an edict before the wheel was invented.

We shouldn't change for change's sake, but we shouldn't be afraid to question and to see if maybe, just maybe, there was a point behind a Scripture that we've missed... lest we be exactly like the Pharisees (which I think many Christians today are)

[ottaia]

I wonder which spirit you are asking us to listen to, ottaia.
I could ask the same of you.

[SPALATIN]

I could ask the same of you.

I think that Danhead asked first. Balls in your court again Ottaia.

[ottaia]

Thank you Scott,

I appreciate the way you take control of all situations.

But actually, you are right. The spirit I listen to has a long red tail and horns. My actual job is to lead people to their damnation. Hey, if you check my journal, you will see that I have already been to Hell. I am thinking of buyind some lake property. I do want to make sure I get good at jetskiing because falling of into a lake can be pretty nasty.

[SPALATIN]

Thank you Scott,

I appreciate the way you take control of all situations.

But actually, you are right. The spirit I listen to has a long red tail and horns. My actual job is to lead people to their damnation. Hey, if you check my journal, you will see that I have already been to Hell. I am thinking of buyind some lake property. I do want to make sure I get good at jetskiing because falling of into a lake can be pretty nasty.


NO comment:scratch:

[GlowingFirefly]

MOD HAT ON

There is NO DEBATING allowed in this thread or any thread in the ELCA forum. If you don't agree with something here, take it to the person privatly or discuss it in the main forum. This warning goes out to everyone. Any more flames and debates will end up in closer of this thread.

MOD HAT OFF

[KagomeShuko]

AngelusSax,

We ARE the Pharisees of today. We're the ones who go to church! We're often the ones who pray - and even in public! Thus, we ARE the Pharisees. At least, that's how people are going to see us! We have to remember that!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[AngelusSax]

Point taken Bridget. I just fear becoming so rigid with keeping laws that I forget why they're there, or that I forget that I'm supposed to extend grace and mercy as well since it was first shown to me.

[Protoevangel]

I wonder which spirit you are asking us to listen to, ottaia.I could ask the same of you.
You certianlly could, if you wished to do so.

The spirit I listen to has a long red tail and horns. My actual job is to lead people to their damnation.
Not quite what I expected, but if you say so.

[Protoevangel]

Maybe we are, maybe we're not. We owe it to ourselves and to our faith to not just blindly follow absolutely everything that came down in an edict before the wheel was invented.

We shouldn't change for change's sake, but we shouldn't be afraid to question and to see if maybe, just maybe, there was a point behind a Scripture that we've missed... lest we be exactly like the Pharisees (which I think many Christians today are)
Oh, absolutely we can question, but if we have the same spirit, we will not end up with a contradictory conclusion.


I just fear becoming so rigid with keeping laws that I forget why they're there, or that I forget that I'm supposed to extend grace and mercy as well since it was first shown to me.
Extend all the grace, mercy and forgiveness in the world. That, we are called to do. Teach correct doctrine, and rebuke all that goes against correct doctrine. This also are we called to do. One cannot replace the other, if one is lost, then the other is but an empty work.

When we give up correct doctrine and only teach grace and mercy. it ceases to be grace and mercy, and becomes licentiousness. When we give up grace and mercy and teach only correct doctrine, it ceases to be correct doctrine, and we do become as the Pharasees. We cannot have one without the other.

[JMRE5150]

Extend all the grace, mercy and forgiveness in the world. That, we are called to do. Teach correct doctrine, and rebuke all that goes against correct doctrine. This also are we called to do. One cannot replace the other, if one is lost, then the other is but an empty work.

When we give up correct doctrine and only teach grace and mercy. it ceases to be grace and mercy, and becomes licentiousness. When we give up grace and mercy and teach only correct doctrine, it ceases to be correct doctrine, and we do become as the Pharasees. We cannot have one without the other.

And sadly, mankind is not capable of holding these two sides in equal balance. I dare any Lutheran denomination to show me how they do not continue to put one over the other.

Some put "the rules" of doctrine slightly ahead of grace and mercy, and others put grace and mercy ahead of doctrine. I have yet to see it handled with exact equality.

Its the dog chasing its tail, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

I say, if you enjoy putting doctrine slightly ahead of grace and mercy, enjoy the sect your in. If you belief grace trumps all, enjoy the sect your in. If not...switch. But either way, dont try and convince me what I should believe. After all, we are ALL sinners, on both sides of the debate. Why should I listen to others who don't share my views?

Call it anti-unification, I dont care. Call me a non-Lutheran...I dont care. Call me a non-christian...I dont care.

This was not meant towards DanHead or any other person here. Its a simple opinion on my behalf. Quite frankly, I'm betting that when judgement day comes, we will all say "But Christ, I did good! I spent my whole life trying to convince everyone else they had your doctrines wrong!" And Christ may very well say "Thats great, but did you love them as you loved yourself?" I dare anyone here to say they could answer with a straight face "Yes m'Lord."

Peace, and I'm out of here for awhile. This website gives me a headache anymore.

JMRE5150

[Protoevangel]

And sadly, mankind is not capable of holding these two sides in equal balance. I dare any Lutheran denomination to show me how they do not continue to put one over the other.

Some put "the rules" of doctrine slightly ahead of grace and mercy, and others put grace and mercy ahead of doctrine. I have yet to see it handled with exact equality.

Its the dog chasing its tail, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

I say, if you enjoy putting doctrine slightly ahead of grace and mercy, enjoy the sect your in. If you belief grace trumps all, enjoy the sect your in. If not...switch. But either way, dont try and convince me what I should believe. After all, we are ALL sinners, on both sides of the debate. Why should I listen to others who don't share my views?

Call it anti-unification, I dont care. Call me a non-Lutheran...I dont care. Call me a non-christian...I dont care.

This was not meant towards DanHead or any other person here. Its a simple opinion on my behalf. Quite frankly, I'm betting that when judgement day comes, we will all say "But Christ, I did good! I spent my whole life trying to convince everyone else they had your doctrines wrong!" And Christ may very well say "Thats great, but did you love them as you loved yourself?" I dare anyone here to say they could answer with a straight face "Yes m'Lord."

Peace, and I'm out of here for awhile. This website gives me a headache anymore.

JMRE5150
You reminded of two quotes of Luther's (quoted from memory):

1) Walking in line with the Gospel is like a drunken man riding on a horse; he is constantly falling off to the left (licentiousness or antinomianism) or to the right (legalism or moralism).

2) If a man can always divide the Law and the Gospel correctly, I will, right here, give him his Doctor's cap, for I admit that I myself cannot always divide Scripture rightly.

You are right Jim; we will not get it all right all of the time, but the sectarianism you propose is dangerous. We need to be able to encourage, challenge and rebuke each other, so that we do not fall entirely into either licentiousness or into legalism.

It is one thing to have a tendency to lean to one side or the other, especially if you are open to correction; that is about the best that one person can expect from another. It is another thing entirely to retreat to either licentiousness or legalism; both are forms of self-justification, both ways of avoiding Christ as your Savior.

Oh, and if anyone answer's with a "But Christ, I did good!", they have missed the point... and the boat.