the ELCA's left leaning advocacy

[cableguy]

This has been a question that's been with me for a while. We go after the more right wingish Christians for their political leanings a lot, and most of the time rightly so. But we don't ever bring up the more left leaning organizations like the NCC for their "advocacy".

For instance. The ELCA along with the NCC made a loud noise when it came to budget cuts because some of those cuts included thinning down some social programs, but not ONCE do they ever make a fuss about abortion...perhaps because it doesn't gel with their agenda, I don't know.

Anyway, I think it's a one sided afair. Doesn't trying to bring a moral message have to overcome "left" and "right" politics? If the ELCA is putting pressure on the house and senate to save social programs, shouldn't they also in turn put on some pressure to stop abortion? At what point should we butt out of government?

[KagomeShuko]

I don't get into politics all the much. I'd say we should try to stop abortion. However, I've heard other things from other people. I don't really know much, but I know that I disagree with the ELCA's statement on abortion - however, ELCA is still the denomination that fits my beliefs the closest. . .so that's where I stay. If it were to dramatically change, I'd not be there any longer.

I may be very opinionated, but I'm not political :)

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA's position on abortion is the only one that troubles me, and even then, it isn't THAT big of a trouble, since they don't go so far as to say "abortion is cool, do it!" like Planned Parenthood does (or seems to anyway).

I do wish the ELCA would make some noise about stopping abortion, but that isn't going to happen. As such, I decided to place my interest in abortion toward the Supreme Court and my Senators. The Supreme Court needs to have a pro-life leaning to overturn the ridiculous assumption that it's a privacy right to kill an unborn child before any law banning abortion, on any level, would take hold.

[cableguy]

Truthfully, even if the ELCA had more of an objective stance on moral issues, I’d still prefer they didn’t advocate at all. Leave the politics to the polititions. I suppose that would mean leaving the NCC as well, since most of what the ELCA does is in sync with their stance on issues.

[soccerguy2594]

I think it is really hard to have a strong faith and stay out of politics. Jesus' message was very political (even though he at times resisted the title Messiah).

However, I think it is very hard for an organization to step into the political sphere without alienating some of its members. The ELCA itself is divided over the issue of abortion and its nuances. The ELCA is divided over a number of issues. However, these disagreements don't mean we can't be "church." They just make it harder to have a definitive stance on any real issue.

[SPALATIN]

I think it is really hard to have a strong faith and stay out of politics. Jesus' message was very political (even though he at times resisted the title Messiah).

However, I think it is very hard for an organization to step into the political sphere without alienating some of its members. The ELCA itself is divided over the issue of abortion and its nuances. The ELCA is divided over a number of issues. However, these disagreements don't mean we can't be "church." They just make it harder to have a definitive stance on any real issue.

I don't think he ever denied or resisted the title of Messiah. Whenever he was asked this question he replied "I AM".

I think that he resisted rather the publicity that went with the territory.

[Marguerite]

But where does one draw the line between political issues and moral issues? Abortion is the legal murder of an innocent life - much the same as genocide. This is far different than women being a pastor or elders - something that was opposed by Lutheran churches for centuries. Even the death penalty or war sits on murkier ground.

At the ELCA's 1997 convention, a resolution to restrict ELCA funding of abortions to "clear threat to the life of the woman", "extreme fetal abnormality" incompatible with life, and in cases of rape and incest, was rejected 70%-30%. The ELCA funds elective abortions in the church’s health care coverage for pastors and professional church workers, and some Lutheran-affiliated hospital perform elective abortions.

The fact that they will pay for elective abortions for their church workers states emphatically that they are pro-choice. So of course by not opposing legislation such as partial birth abortion and others, they are strongly stating with their silence that they support it.

That is not to say that everyone belonging to an ELCA congregation supports that view, but I have a difficult time understanding why someone would want to belong to a church body that supports this action when there are Lutheran denominations that do not.

BTW: I too would agree that Jesus never resisted the title Messiah except in the instances when it referred to Him saving them from the Romans as opposed to sacvng them from eternal death. In fact, part of the reasons for His miracles was to draw attention to Him so He could share the Good News of salvation to all.

[AngelusSax]

That is not to say that everyone belonging to an ELCA congregation supports that view, but I have a difficult time understanding why someone would want to belong to a church body that supports this action when there are Lutheran denominations that do not.

Well, I could just cut and run, but I'm a fighter, and as such I prefer to stay and fight the good fight. Even if there's no chance of my side winning.

[Marguerite]

Well, I could just cut and run, but I'm a fighter, and as such I prefer to stay and fight the good fight. Even if there's no chance of my side winning.


Fair enough!

I came across sounding more critical than I intended to. It is a difficult thing for me to fathom, but I did not mean to sound judgmental, either.

[AngelusSax]

Oh, no offense was taken. I merely was explaining my own reasons for staying. Others may have other reasons. (Well, I also am very, very hard-core for the allowance of woman pastors and an open communion with fellow believers of Christ... having one fight instead of two is easier on my mind)

[KagomeShuko]

I could say a lot on the recent post, but I'm not going to say it at all. I think Angelus and I are pretty much on the same page with this issue, though.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[stumpjumper]

But where does one draw the line between political issues and moral issues? Abortion is the legal murder of an innocent life - much the same as genocide. This is far different than women being a pastor or elders - something that was opposed by Lutheran churches for centuries. Even the death penalty or war sits on murkier ground.

Here is ELCA's social statement on abortion: http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/abortion/

It seems pretty middle of the road stating that abortion should be always be last option but keeping the access open for cases of rape and incest. I don't see a great deal wrong with that type of statement. In the US, abortion will never be illegal across the board.

Even if Roe/Wade is overturned it just goes back to the states and then you have differing laws across the country and in areas where legal abortion is not available illegal abortions will certainly increase. My personal belief is that we should spend our energies combatting abortion from a social standpoint by fighting for universal health-care, bridging the gap between the rich and the poor and supporting homes for pregnant women. Our Church supports a home called House of His Creation for pregnant girls who have decided against abortion. I personally think actions that attack the root of the problem are more effective than simple rhetoric and political stances that you here by the more conservative Christian spokespeople on tv...

[Marguerite]

Here is ELCA's social statement on abortion: http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/abortion/

It seems pretty middle of the road stating that abortion should be always be last option but keeping the access open for cases of rape and incest. I don't see a great deal wrong with that type of statement. In the US, abortion will never be illegal across the board.



But, this was my point, (quoting my previous post)

At the ELCA's 1997 convention, a resolution to restrict ELCA funding of abortions to "clear threat to the life of the woman", "extreme fetal abnormality" incompatible with life, and in cases of rape and incest, was rejected 70%-30%. The ELCA funds elective abortions in the church’s health care coverage for pastors and professional church workers, and some Lutheran-affiliated hospital perform elective abortions. The fact that they will pay forelective abortions for their church workers states emphatically that they are pro-choice. So of course by not opposing legislation such as partial birth abortion and others, they are strongly stating with their silence that they support it.

ELCA's official stand is pretty much "sitting on the fence". One one side they say that they value the life of the unborn - that abortion should only take place under certain circumstances, but at their 1997 convention they took a "whatever" stand.

Also, the church's moral stand should have nothing to do with the legal stand the United States government takes on any moral issue. I agree with you that we should be addressing other social concerns. As Christians that is our responsibility. But are we really supposed to pick and choose?

[stumpjumper]

True. I just look at it slightly differently. Do we really need, in the US, another extreme right wing Christian POV?

I personally wish they had a stronger stance on abortion but I also wish other Churches had a stronger stance against the death penalty, social justice, anti-discrimination etc. I guess you have to take the good with the bad and one can always write a letter to the synod.

Maybe, I'll do that. Well off to my rather liberal Church. You think ELCA is left leaning you should visit my congregation ;)

[cableguy]

True. I just look at it slightly differently. Do we really need, in the US, another extreme right wing Christian POV?



How is an “extreme right wing” point of view to think it’s against God’s will for women to abort their children? Please clarify.

[stumpjumper]

How is an “extreme right wing” point of view to think it’s against God’s will for women to abort their children? Please clarify.

Well, first, their statement on abortion says that abortion is against God's will. Read the link as they only say in cases of incest or rape that it should be considered acceptable.

Second, a right wing dogmatic statement against all abortion is not neccesary for a group such as ELCA. Pretty much all the rest of the Evangelical groups have such a statement and it has gotten us nowhere. Abortions have only increased over the past decade while the crys against them have done the same.

Maybe if Dobson and his ilk would spend less time "fixing" homosexuals and actually work to reduce abortions through lobbying for health care access and bridging the gap between the haves and have-nots these issues would start to take care of themselves.

Have I claryfied a little bit for ya :)

[Marguerite]

Well, first, their statement on abortion says that abortion is against God's will. Read the link as they only say in cases of incest or rape that it should be considered acceptable.




However, they will pay for abortions for their church workers with no limitations on why they need an abortion. That makes sense? That is consistent with their stand?

[stumpjumper]

However, they will pay for abortions for their church workers with no limitations on why they need an abortion. That makes sense? That is consistent with their stand?

Is it a legal issue with the insurance company?

I honestly don't know and would have to look into it further. I really don't know all the details and I am sure there is something more to it than just them saying "sure have an abortion". I just am wary to condemn them on that one excerpt...

[Marguerite]

Is it a legal issue with the insurance company?

I honestly don't know and would have to look into it further. I really don't know all the details and I am sure there is something more to it than just them saying "sure have an abortion". I just am wary to condemn them on that one excerpt...

This is the link I found it on:

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Denominational-stand-on-the-issue-of-abortion.htm

It's on various other sites, but the wording is the same. the resolution was written after their "official stand" on abortion.

As far as a legal issue with the insurance company, I am pretty certain that is not it. I am a professional church worker and we have our insurance through BC/BS. We had the abortion coverage removed. (We were surprised to find it actually saved the church money)

[cableguy]

Well, first, their statement on abortion says that abortion is against God's will. Read the link as they only say in cases of incest or rape that it should be considered acceptable.

There are quite a few discrepancies in the ELCA Social Statement on Abortion that, contrary to your analysis, does not make it a strait forward response to the abortion issue. Lutherans For Life makes a very good argument about the language used in the statement. Their response reflects my own beliefs that the ELCA makes some very confusing statements, open to justifying abortion for reasons other than protecting the life of the mother or rape and/or incest.

For instance, page three states: “Fetal abnormality which will result in the severe suffering and very early death of an infant.” What in the world is THAT supposed to mean? There is not clarification. Are we to kill babies that may have defects at birth? Retardation? To make matters worse, Addendum [F] states “Abortion in not acceptable later than the first trimester.” Wow…simply amazing. Now the ELCA decides when it’s “morally safe” to terminate a life.

I will agree that some of what the ELCA does as far as advocacy is great. Rather than doing the work of Christ threw their advocacy, however, they are simply drinking progressive kool-aid by ignoring the morality behind the termination of the unborn life in a mother’s womb.

[mmckeen]

I'm new here so I hope this is the right forum for this message.

I have been a lifelong Lutheran. I have always loved the Lutheran church and its message. Even helped start a church in St Louis.

But now I continue to hear and experience troubling signs. In a series of emails with my Pastors I am being lead down a path that says:

Jesus Christ is not unique (He is a Son of God, not THE Son of God) .. All people are saved regardless of beliefs or actions (nonbelievers, everyone ... doesn't matter)
..God is Universal meaning that ALL religions worship the same God.

This seems so wrong to me. Is my church (ELCA) unique in this or is this the new stance of the ELCA?

[AngelusSax]

My ELCA congregation professes that Jesus is THE Son of God. Yes, we are all sons and daughters of God in Christ, but none of us are THE Son like Jesus was/is/always will be. We profess that Christ is THE way of and to salvation.

We acknowledge that Christians and Jews worship the same God (Father). We acknowledge that, historically, the Muslims worship the same Father, as they trace their lineage also back to Abraham and through much of our Old Testament "characters".

I think your church is, while not necessarily unique in the literal sense of the word, not part of the norm, in claiming universalness of salvation. While it is true that Christ died for all the world, it is also true some will reject that gift and thus condemn their own selves. The possibility of salvation exists for all, but the actual salvation of all is not a teaching of the ELCA, to my knowledge, and thankfully not at my congregation.

I pray that your congregation will at least realize that Christ is THE Son of God, and THE way of and to Salvation.

[mmckeen]

I agree with you on everything you said but my Pastors certainly would not. Quoting you below "Christ is THE Son of God, and THE way of and to Salvation" they would quickly say Christ is one way to Salvation, not THE way ... and I am being intolerate to say He is THE only way.

In our Sunday School class we discussed the lines from the movie Oh God where George Burns delcares that Jesus, Mohammad, Budah, etc. are all equal...Sons of God. I agree that we are all "children" of God but I am certainly not equal to Jesus, my Lord!

Thanks again for your post. I'm just afraid that the ELCA is pushing me out the door.....and it really hurts....

[C.F.W. Walther]

GO back and read the "volumes" of post in the "theologia crusis" thread about just what you are asking about.

[Protoevangel]

I agree with you on everything you said but my Pastors certainly would not. Quoting you below "Christ is THE Son of God, and THE way of and to Salvation" they would quickly say Christ is one way to Salvation, not THE way ... and I am being intolerate to say He is THE only way.

In our Sunday School class we discussed the lines from the movie Oh God where George Burns delcares that Jesus, Mohammad, Budah, etc. are all equal...Sons of God. I agree that we are all "children" of God but I am certainly not equal to Jesus, my Lord!

Thanks again for your post. I'm just afraid that the ELCA is pushing me out the door.....and it really hurts....
Just don't feel alone. My experience with the ELCA has been much the same as your own. I am no longer attending my ELCA church, and am still working on a graceful exit letter (yes, I know, I've been working on it for how long now?).

Anyway, feel free to pm me or post your thoughts. I do sometimes bite, but my teeth aren't nearly as sharp as they once were ;)

[AngelusSax]

Anyway, feel free to pm me or post your thoughts. I do sometimes bite, but my teeth aren't nearly as sharp as they once were ;)

This is what happens when you wear them out on me... ;)

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

As has been posted earlier, the ELCA only supports abortions in rape and incest cases, or in cases in which would prevent suffering and death of the mother or child. Some may disagree with this, but in the end it is clear that this doesn't mean they support abortion, but that the ELCA is looking out for its members who "have no choice" if I may. If a little girl is raped and becomes pregnant, not only should she not be responsible for a life she never really took part in creating, but the birth itself could be physically harmful, this statement allows the family to be able to look towards her health without the fear of church criticism/discipline. But the statement essentially does only allow for extenuating circumstances.
As to the real problem at hand, why they can raise issues about social services but not moral problems like abortion, I think you raise a really good point. As to why they don't press against abortion my best guess would be because they do allow it in extreme circumstances and because it politically is a typical "conservative" stance and I think the ELCA is trying to avoid that label (as apparent last year with the homosexuallity issues). I also think it is the case (as I beleive someone else has already pointed out) that the ELCA is a very large and diverse church body. It maintains unity by standing in the middle ground because the more vocal it is on either side the more divisive it will become. This was apparent within the LCMS during the Yankee Stadium issue.
As to why then they can speak out about social services when they won't with things like abortion, I would say for two main reasons: 1) neither conservative or liberal Christians are going to oppose services that give aid to people. So publicity is not divisive or one that would attach "labels" if I may. 2) whereas abortion is a choice ultimately made by the mother, or on a wider scale-the people, social services is decided by the government. The ELCA can help limit and stop abortions by telling members not to get them and encourage others. But they have no power over distribution of social services. Now this doesn't address non-ELCA mothers getting abortions or why the ELCA doesn't take it upon themselves to start a replacement service and look after various needs themselves. But I think that in its own might be a different matter.

[RayJGentry]

i just wanted to post regarding the earlier comment of abortion being genocide. it is not.

gen·o·cide n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
from dictionary.com

abortion, as terrible as it is, is not genocide. it is not even possible to argue that pro-choicers are in support of some that can be defined as such. they are not in favor of killing every unborn baby. is abortion terrible? absolutely. but is it genocide? not even close. the better argument is that it's murder.

even as someone who would like abortion drastically restricted, i'm sick of hearing the genocide argument. it's not true and a differnt tactic should be used.

[Protoevangel]

i just wanted to post regarding the earlier comment of abortion being genocide. it is not.

gen·o·cide n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
from dictionary.com

abortion, as terrible as it is, is not genocide. it is not even possible to argue that pro-choicers are in support of some that can be defined as such. they are not in favor of killing every unborn baby. is abortion terrible? absolutely. but is it genocide? not even close. the better argument is that it's murder.

even as someone who would like abortion drastically restricted, i'm sick of hearing the genocide argument. it's not true and a differnt tactic should be used.
Good point. I have at times been guilty of using the "genocide" terminology myself. I admit I have been wrong in doing so; thinking with my heart and not with my head. Abortion is indeed murder, and not genocide. It is important for us to be intellectually honest in our dialogue.

[RayJGentry]

i'm glad i wasn't way off base with my post. i was curious to see if i would have some flaming posts, disagreements or agreements. i mean i completely understand why people use the word. many people won't get out and support a cause if it doesn't "tug at their heartstrings." i however feel that it's a irresponsible way to do so. the issue of abortions has so much emotion attached to it on both sides already. more emotions do not need to be forced. it only polarizes the discussion rather than opening it up to come to a comprimise (which is what i think we all know is realistically how the situation will be handled). i honestly think that because so much emotion is already tied to the issue, we need to downplay the emotional aspect and discuss it logically and rationally. only then will we come to an open honest dialogue about it, rather than the "one side or the other" argument and name calling session it's become.

[stumpjumper]

Abortion is one of my biggest issues and the hardest one to come to a real position on too...

I am pro-life in that I believe very strongly that all abortion is wrong except where the life of the mother is at stake.

I don't really stray from that position but I also am not sure if legislation is the only way to approach the issue and it is in this regards that I tend to agree with a more left-leaning approach about approaching the issue...

Anyway that's my thoughts for now...

[RayJGentry]

but to legislate "save the life of the mother" you have to throw in the phrase "immediate." it'd be interesting to see the statistics (if they actually existed in whole) of how mothers of children concieved from rape or incest fare. if they, or thier children have higher suicide rates, abuse issues, high suicide rates, etc. it can be argued that aborting a fetus concieved from rape or incest may in fact be saving many women's lives...not just quality of life-wise (such as "i'm not ready, etc"), but if suicide can be linked to that, i would think it would be justifiable then, just using the "to save the life of the mother" rationalle. now i'm more playing devil's advocate here, but i do in fact have a hard time saying for certain i wouldn't want a woman to have the choice of an abortion under those circumstances.

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

Ray J Gentry IV

[Protoevangel]

I don't really stray from that position but I also am not sure if legislation is the only way to approach the issue and it is in this regards that I tend to agree with a more left-leaning approach about approaching the issue...
Would you say the same thing regarding infants, toddlers, etc? Should it not be considered criminal to murder an already-born child?

I'm not debating, just seeking clarification.

[Protoevangel]

but to legislate "save the life of the mother" you have to throw in the phrase "immediate." it'd be interesting to see the statistics (if they actually existed in whole) of how mothers of children concieved from rape or incest fare. if they, or thier children have higher suicide rates, abuse issues, high suicide rates, etc. it can be argued that aborting a fetus concieved from rape or incest may in fact be saving many women's lives...not just quality of life-wise (such as "i'm not ready, etc"), but if suicide can be linked to that, i would think it would be justifiable then, just using the "to save the life of the mother" rationalle. now i'm more playing devil's advocate here, but i do in fact have a hard time saying for certain i wouldn't want a woman to have the choice of an abortion under those circumstances.

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

Ray J Gentry IV
So murdering an innocent pre-born human child would be acceptable, if it might prevent a suicide?

I for one would be more inclined to provide support (financial, room & board, councelling, assistance in adoption paperwork, etc.) for the mother and child than to tell the woman that she can have an innocent human life exterminated because of the heinous evil of a seperate individual. If she has to kill someone, I'd have the rapit tied up and give her a gun with a full clip (and a few spare clips as well, maybe).

Again, I'm not debating, just seeking further clarification.

[stumpjumper]

Would you say the same thing regarding infants, toddlers, etc? Should it not be considered criminal to murder an already-born child?

I'm not debating, just seeking clarification.

I personally look at it the issue in a pragmatic fashion. Yes, I do believe that all life is sacred and that we should not ever pre-maturely end life once it has begun be they born or unborn...

However, even without changing legislation, I think there are a lot of steps that we can take to lower the abortion rate. Every year my wife runs a Christmas fund-raiser for a charity that houses pregnant teens who would have otherwise had an abortion... They always lack funding and sometimes have to turn people away. Stuff like that shouldn't happen, IMO...

[Protoevangel]

I personally look at it the issue in a pragmatic fashion. Yes, I do believe that all life is sacred and that we should not ever pre-maturely end life once it has begun be they born or unborn...

However, even without changing legislation, I think there are a lot of steps that we can take to lower the abortion rate. Every year my wife runs a Christmas fund-raiser for a charity that houses pregnant teens who would have otherwise had an abortion... They always lack funding and sometimes have to turn people away. Stuff like that shouldn't happen, IMO...
I absolutely agree with you here. The Church should lead the way, and make saving the life of the unborn, in a loving manner, a top priority. Unfortunately, in the church I recently left, I tried to start a number of initiatives, all which were shot down by the same group, who claimed that pregnancy/abortion was a "political issue", and the church should not get involved. :scratch: :confused: :o :sigh: :cry: The pastor of this church also refused to support, in any means, by word or action, (and did not allow his staff to publicly support) the local crisis pregnancy center, or other pro-life organizations. This was part of the reason his Lay Ministry coordinator quit on him. This is the only example I have seen of "liberality" in regard to the subject. I am so happy that I have had the chance to post with you, to see another side of liberality. God bless you stumpjumper.

I agree that legislation is not "the golden key", but I do believe that it is a definite step in the right direction... But only with the Church doing her part as well, which she is miserably failing at, up to now.

[stumpjumper]

Thanks Danhead

I agree that the Church should take a stand on a lot of these social issues... When the Church says it doesn't want to get involved is when it stops being the Church...

As Jim Wallis said: "Faith is always personal but never private."

God Bless you too

[Protoevangel]

When the Church says it doesn't want to get involved is when it stops being the Church...
On one hand, I would have to say that social justice is not necessarily and specifically one of the core marks of the Church. Word and Sacrament alone are the marks of the Church.

But on the other hand, I must confess; I wonder if the Word can be considered to be declared in purity, when abortion is not consistently and actively denounced and condemned in a time when thousands innocent children of God are mercilessly slaughtered every single day.

[C.F.W. Walther]

We allways point our fingers at the world and how wicked they are and the total state of sinfulness that they are in. But I believe that God will heal the nation when WE repent of our sinfull ways and turn back to His precepts. That WE ask God's forgiveness for our erring ways and our sinfull nature. We can pray all we want but if we arn't right with God then it is for nothing that we pray. The prayers of a righteous man availeth much and if we arn't righteous before God the prayers are ineffectual. It's not everyone else, it's US. We will be judged.

It's easy to say that all the problems in our country will be taken care of if we can just convert the people to our way of thinkng but when we are just as liberal as they are then they don't see any reasons to come over to our side. Our liberality and sinfull nature waters down our message to them and supports their position more than our own.




:scratch:

[stumpjumper]

On one hand, I would have to say that social justice is not necessarily and specifically one of the core marks of the Church. Word and Sacrament alone are the marks of the Church.

The Word and Sacrament are certainly the foundation of the Church and I believe that this was what Jesus meant when he said he would "build his Church" in Matthew.

However, social justice is one of the foundations of Jesus' public ministry. At the beginning of Luke's description of Jesus' puclic teaching, Jesus quoted Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

The Word, social justice, liberation of peoples, and respecting the life of all of those around us cannot be separated.

But on the other hand, I must confess; I wonder if the Word can be considered to be declared in purity, when abortion is not consistently and actively denounced and condemned in a time when thousands innocent children of God are mercilessly slaughtered every single day.

I agree and most ELCA members and clergy would most certainly agree too. A lot of them might look at the official ELCA position as more of a different method of approaching the issue. It's a difficult issue because denouncing all abortions is only the first step. The next one is to actively seek to reduce the abortion rate as well and there are a lot of things that we all can do to accomplish that...

[jcj3803]

I am LCMS and WELS by background, currently a UMC member but attending an ELCA church on a regular basis. I am a right of center political conservative, so you know where I am coming from, i.e. neither a libertarian nor a fascist.

It seems in the US today, that the majority of opinion is that anything "left" or liberal is good and "progressive" while anything "right" or conservative is archaic and to be condemned. It also seems that liberals make a lot more noise than conservatives. Maybe this is a case of the squeeky wheel getting the grease.

[synger]

I am LCMS and WELS by background, currently a UMC member but attending an ELCA church on a regular basis. I am a right of center political conservative, so you know where I am coming from, i.e. neither a libertarian nor a fascist.

It seems in the US today, that the majority of opinion is that anything "left" or liberal is good and "progressive" while anything "right" or conservative is archaic and to be condemned. It also seems that liberals make a lot more noise than conservatives. Maybe this is a case of the squeeky wheel getting the grease.
I can relate. I came to LCMS from the liberal PCUSA, though my church was fairly conservative. I am a registered Democrat, married to a raving Republican (Rush Limbaugh-listening and everything). I am theologically conservative, but tend toward political liberalism, and social moderateness. By this I mean I believe the government should reach out to the poor and dispossessed (so politically liberal). On social issues like abortion and homosexuality, I'm more conservative than liberal, yet I have a great number of raving liberal friends and understand where they're coming from (even if I think most of their argumetns miss the point).

I think some of the more vocal conservative Christians have done the rest of us a grave disservice by the unloving way they have couched their opinions and protest. I see the fallout from that daily, from my friends to my workplace.

[Izdaari]

Truthfully, even if the ELCA had more of an objective stance on moral issues, I’d still prefer they didn’t advocate at all. Leave the politics to the polititions. I suppose that would mean leaving the NCC as well, since most of what the ELCA does is in sync with their stance on issues.
That would be my preference as well. Since I'm a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Libertarian Faction, ELCA political stances mostly don't sit well with me.

I'm new here so I hope this is the right forum for this message.

I have been a lifelong Lutheran. I have always loved the Lutheran church and its message. Even helped start a church in St Louis.

But now I continue to hear and experience troubling signs. In a series of emails with my Pastors I am being lead down a path that says:

Jesus Christ is not unique (He is a Son of God, not THE Son of God) .. All people are saved regardless of beliefs or actions (nonbelievers, everyone ... doesn't matter)
..God is Universal meaning that ALL religions worship the same God.

This seems so wrong to me. Is my church (ELCA) unique in this or is this the new stance of the ELCA?
I certainly hope not! Theologically, I seem to be a moderate Lutheran, apparently too liberal for the LCMS, so I guess ELCA must be where I belong. That is, assuming I don't run into the same theological squishiness you have. I'd have to go back to the LCMS and try to fit in, or find a home outside the Lutheran fold.

[RayJGentry]

A pastor in the ELCA really shouldn't be advocating that sort of stance. I would say they are way out of line from the rest of the synod. Possibly there are more pastors that feel that way, but I don't know an ELCA pastor who wouldn't stand up and say "Jesus is THE way and THE son of God."

[Luther073082]

I've been in the ELCA a couple of years and one thing I've learned is that the ELCA doesn't have any real political backbone that I've seen.

How many times have they tabled gay marriage?

and your right they won't make any noise about abortion.

I personally think the majority of the ELCA is conservative on gay marriage and abortion but you have a few churches, probably many in big cities which are very very liberal on these issues.

I think the moderatly conservative majority in the ELCA are just a little bit afraid to show their conservatism because they don't want to split the church.

Personally I'm in the ELCA because of the whole closed communion thing in the LCMS. I just can't go to a church that supports closed communion because I think its theologically incorrect. Besides my individual congregation is fairly conservative (for the ELCA) so I'm willing to put up with a spineless national organization for that.

[jcj3803]

[...] I don't know an ELCA pastor who wouldn't stand up and say "Jesus is THE way and THE son of God."

How about a pastor saying in a sermon that he doesn't believe the feeding of the multitude was a miracle? He believes that sharing had a ripple effect, with everybody digging into their own bags for bread and fish to share.

A popular secular explanation, but surprising coming from a pastor. Although I'm told he did not say that in later sermons that day. Perhaps he was corrected by the Senior Pastor?

[synger]

It's not just a secular explanation. I've heard it and other miracle-explanations from a few liberal Christian pastors -- Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Methodist.

It was a surprise the first time I heard it. It's why I stopped reading Willaim Barclay's "Daily Study Bible." I love the format, love the in-depth explanations, love that I can study in depth one book at a time in a single volume that I can take on Metro or put into my purse. But the more I read the more I realized he was a universalist, and didn't believe in the miracles of the BIble.

I still remember coming home from college one weekend and talking about something I was learning in my youth group (very conservative Christian group) and my mom asking me if I really believed that the miracles in the Old Testament really happened. I was so surprised that she didn't. It had never occurred to me to question it. This was way before I had ever heard the terms "inerrant" and "inspired." That debate wasn't part of my Christian upbringing in the Presbyterian church.

And now you can't turn one way or the other in Christian circles without such discussion. *sighs*

[Luther073082]

How about a pastor saying in a sermon that he doesn't believe the feeding of the multitude was a miracle? He believes that sharing had a ripple effect, with everybody digging into their own bags for bread and fish to share.

A popular secular explanation, but surprising coming from a pastor. Although I'm told he did not say that in later sermons that day. Perhaps he was corrected by the Senior Pastor?

Hmm thats rubbing on the edge of heresy there I don't like it.

Fortunutly I havn't heard any heretics speak in the ELCA, I did hear a LCMS heretic who claimed that unbaptized children where demons. He in fact claimed that my cousins baby who was about a month old at the time was a demon child prior to her baptism. (And this during a sermon!)

[Izdaari]

Hmm thats rubbing on the edge of heresy there I don't like it.

Fortunutly I havn't heard any heretics speak in the ELCA, I did hear a LCMS heretic who claimed that unbaptized children where demons. He in fact claimed that my cousins baby who was about a month old at the time was a demon child prior to her baptism. (And this during a sermon!)
Although I consider myself theologically moderate and pretty tolerant, both of those incidents make me think of this passage:



Galatians 1:6-9 (English Standard Version)

English Standard Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=47) (ESV)The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. (http://www.gnpcb.org/)
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=28)

No Other Gospel

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

[jcj3803]

[...] It's why I stopped reading Willaim Barclay's "Daily Study Bible." I love the format, love the in-depth explanations, love that I can study in depth one book at a time in a single volume that I can take on Metro or put into my purse. But the more I read the more I realized he was a universalist, and didn't believe in the miracles of the Bible.


Interesting! I bought a couple of Barclay's volumes awhile ago for the same reasons and just started one, but haven't come across that yet.

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed

Good passage!

[synger]

YEah, I really wish someone would come up with a more conservative translation/commentary in a layman-friendly format (paperback) like Barclay. All the other single-book commentaries are HUGE, and hardcover, and $40 a piece. That's fine for seminarians and preachers, but it ain't happening for me.

[Luther073082]

Although I consider myself theologically moderate and pretty tolerant, both of those incidents make me think of this passage:

I'm usually tolerant of most theologies, but I'm not too tolerant of heresy. I define heresy as a teaching that is very very blatently contrary to the bible being taught as the word of God.

I consider Pat Robertson and Joel Olsteen heretics. Pat because he teaches that God punishes us on earth for our actions.

Joel Olsteen because he teaches that God wants you to be rich and I've never seen anything in the bible which indicates that God really cares about how much money you have.

[Izdaari]

I'm usually tolerant of most theologies, but I'm not too tolerant of heresy. I define heresy as a teaching that is very very blatently contrary to the bible being taught as the word of God.

I consider Pat Robertson and Joel Olsteen heretics. Pat because he teaches that God punishes us on earth for our actions.

Joel Olsteen because he teaches that God wants you to be rich and I've never seen anything in the bible which indicates that God really cares about how much money you have.
Osteen is not alone in that teaching. As far as I can tell, he gets it from his friends in the Word of Faith movement, a Pentecostal offshoot that many popular TV evangelists are part of. Among them are Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer and Jesse Duplantis. I don't know that Osteen is part of that group, if only because he's never very explicit about his theology, but he and Joyce Meyer recommend and support each other.

I wouldn't call it a heresy, because I don't yet know enough about why they believe that, but I'll remain skeptical about it for the same reason. If that teaching is scriptural, I'll need to be convinced of it. One thing in their favor though, a very big thing: All of those people I mentioned are outstanding preachers and teachers from whom I've learned much. I will not discard all the good they do for the sake of a few eccentricities, even though I'll likely never agree with them on some points.

More about Word of Faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith

[Luther073082]

Osteen is not alone in that teaching. As far as I can tell, he gets it from his friends in the Word of Faith movement, a Pentecostal offshoot that many popular TV evangelists are part of. Among them are Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer and Jesse Duplantis. I don't know that Osteen is part of that group, if only because he's never very explicit about his theology, but he and Joyce Meyer recommend and support each other.

I wouldn't call it a heresy, because I don't yet know enough about why they believe that, but I'll remain skeptical about it for the same reason. If that teaching is scriptural, I'll need to be convinced of it. One thing in their favor though, a very big thing: All of those people I mentioned are outstanding preachers and teachers from whom I've learned much. I will not discard all the good they do for the sake of a few eccentricities, even though I'll likely never agree with them on some points.

More about Word of Faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith


True but if they are teaching things that Christ is opposed to then are they really teaching about Christ or are they forumulating a Christ that is to their own liking? If we can formulate the word to our own liking let me know so I can decide that some of those things which I would like to do but I belive are sins I can just do anyways because I can write my own rules.

I'm sorry but that teaching is so contrary to scripture that I'm just going to call it how I see it and I see it as heresy. Its one thing to have a open or liberal interpretation of a passage. Its quite another to teach something that is the complete opposite of what the bible actually says.

[jcj3803]

Hmmmm. I've read a couple of Joyce Meyer's books and thought they were quite good. Where / when does she promote prosperity theology? (I didn't see it per se, like Creflo et. al.)

Thanks!

[Izdaari]

Hmmmm. I've read a couple of Joyce Meyer's books and thought they were quite good. Where / when does she promote prosperity theology? (I didn't see it per se, like Creflo et. al.)

Thanks!
I also very much enjoy Joyce Meyer's work, as I do most of the evangelists I mentioned. I didn't actually say Meyer taught prosperity theology, but that she was associated with the Word of Faith movement, which does.

From MinistryWatch.com (my emphasis added):

Meyer is a prolific writer with more than 70 books to her credit, and has lectured widely on numerous subjects from the broad issues of Christian living, personal development, how to prosper, healing, eating habits and the Bible. A self-described victim of sexual and emotional abuse, Meyer appeals to the hurting of all age groups in society and the church at large with a message of healing and restoration and a promise of hope for realization of “personal destiny” within the will of God.

Meyer’s theology has evolved over time, starting with a clear biblical basis with Charismatic leanings, moving on to embrace elements of the Word of Faith movement and, more recently, has begun to water down direct connections to biblical truth in an attempt to appeal to a more widespread audience (as indicated by the ministry’s name change). http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=431382734

And...

Since I have been asked about Joyce Meyer so often I find it necessary to comment on her teaching. She is known as being one of the top women speakers, one who tells it like it is with a frank but challenging way of putting things. She is an enigma in that she has some very good practical information from experience and the Scripture. So there are good portions in her teaching and there are some bad interpretations and experiences from her teachings that are to be avoided. Meyer may not be completely engulfed in word faith teaching but she is yoked with word faith teachers (in fellowship with Creflo Dollar, and Kenneth Copeland (Copeland’s magazine, The Believer’s Voice of Victory, has carried some of her articles) and her writings and teachings have certainly been influenced by their theology. In her broadcast the first week of January 2005 she interviewed a man giving testimony to Kenneth Hagin who is known for spreading the word/faith heresy to his disciples.http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac17.htm

I do not necessarily agree with this article's characterization of Word of Faith as a heresy, because I don't yet know enough about it. That is, I don't know that how the critics describe its teachings is accurate. I'll have to learn more before I'm willing to take a position, beyond saying I'm concerned and motivated to investigate further.

But this much I can say: I've listened to Creflo Dollar and Ken Copeland several times, and found them to be engaging and effective teachers. I've heard them say some things I had doubts about, and made mental notes to research for myself, but I haven't heard them say anything that I knew to be wrong.

Also, a bit of an oops: we're off-topic from the subject of the ELCA and "its left-leaning advocacy", since as a rather fundamentalist Pentecostal offshoot, WoF is neither Lutheran nor liberal. I don't know if moving this section of the thread would be practical. Maybe we should call it an informational digression. I'll say nothing further here; if anyone wants to continue, let's take it to another thread.

[soccerguy2594]

No good biblical exegete should ever hold Barclay's with any weight!!

I have never read any, but some esteemed, well written, NT biblical professors at a seminary say that they are garbage!! (though not his exact words) They were successful ONLY because they were written for the comman lay person, but they contained horrible biblical exegesis.

[soccerguy2594]

Joyce Meyer's does not preach Biblical theology...she preaches Pop-psychology!!

watching her on TV makes me want to gag!!!

[jcj3803]

I have never read any, but some esteemed, well written, NT biblical professors at a seminary say that they are garbage!!

Interesting! Which seminary? Do you have any references to their comments? Thanks!

[Luther073082]

We need to root out this heresy with great haste. It is damaging to the one true faith.

[Edial]

I also very much enjoy Joyce Meyer's work, as I do most of the evangelists I mentioned. I didn't actually say Meyer taught prosperity theology, but that she was associated with the Word of Faith movement, which does.

From MinistryWatch.com (my emphasis added):

http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=431382734

And...

http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac17.htm

I do not necessarily agree with this article's characterization of Word of Faith as a heresy, because I don't yet know enough about it. That is, I don't know that how the critics describe its teachings is accurate. I'll have to learn more before I'm willing to take a position, beyond saying I'm concerned and motivated to investigate further.

But this much I can say: I've listened to Creflo Dollar and Ken Copeland several times, and found them to be engaging and effective teachers. I've heard them say some things I had doubts about, and made mental notes to research for myself, but I haven't heard them say anything that I knew to be wrong.

...

Copeland, Dollar, Meyers are, as you said, the Word of Faith.
And concerning it being called heresy ...

The Faith movement believes that all was not finished on the cross when Christ said "It is finished".

They believe that Christ's going into hell after his death accomplished all.

This has an appearance of a logical explanation that many buy.

However, it presents that Christ's blood that was shed for us did not accomplish it's finite purpose.

It presents that Christ's death on the cross was incomplete in itself, since it could not take away the sin of the world.
His going into hell accomplished the process.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Joyce Meyer's does not preach Biblical theology...she preaches Pop-psychology!!
...
I heard her here and there.

And I think that it is very easy to turn psychology into another source of "salvation".

The usual purpose of psychology is to remove dependance upon various troubles of life. And it is not bad, since psychology could teach us about outselves.

However, when one mixes it with theology, there is always this unpleasant side-effect that seeps through - removing one's dependance on God.

There is this constant conflict between psychology and theology.
On one hand faith says that if bad things are happening to me, be patient because God is with you.
But psychology jumps right in with a message that bad things MUST be avoided at all cost.

But how the heck are we supposed to learn about life, and patience, and perseverance, and hope, and faith if we do not suffer?

Theology and psychology conflict at their very root of practice.

I agree with you on this.

Thanks, :)
Ed