How is your church handling the ELCA's same sex blessing issue?

[TerraSin]

Well, it's back in the ELCA news again. They are trying to decide what to believe/do about homosexuals. This has caused a lot of anger in our church and we are considering breaking away away from the ELCA. :\ What has been spoken in your churches about this fine mess of idiocy?

CJ

[AngelusSax]

The church gets to decide what its rules are. And if you've placed yourself under the authority of the church, then you abide by whatever they decide. If not, then you get to leave (or stay and gripe about it incessantly).

Our take (congregationally) is:

We don't enforce the no-adultery-rules when it comes to heterosexuals, yet we're supposed to be up in arms about someone trying to change the actual rule for homosexuals? How about we enforce the rules in place and be consistent, eh?

And of course, we wrestle with "why did God say homosexual acts (male only if 100% literal in the OT) were bad? Was it temporary like eating shellfish? Was it because they were straight by nature and engaging in ritualistic homosexual sex? Why why why?"

That's how we're handling it. Or trying to.

[RayJGentry]

when you say "the church gets to decide", do you mean the congregations or the church as the elected officials? the way the ELCA is set up, is that we don't have to just go with what they say. the congregations are supposed to decide how they feel regarding these issues and bring our discernments to the table at the synod assmeblies and national conventions. if your church has just decided to not form opinions about what's going on in the ELCA administration, that's fine, but the ECLA was set up so that the congregations would decide these things (regardless how things are done now).

[AngelusSax]

I meant the Church Body as a whole. Jesus tells Peter, representing the Church, that he (Peter) gets to decide (in a little more wording than that).

Now if the Church decides that the congregations need not follow a Church guideline on this issue, then yes, I would be within bounds to place myself under authority of the church who is under the authority of the Church who said to the church to do what you want on this matter. (caps and non-caps of course are very important for that statement to make any sense at all, hehe)

[stumpjumper]

Well, it's back in the ELCA news again. They are trying to decide what to believe/do about homosexuals. This has caused a lot of anger in our church and we are considering breaking away away from the ELCA. :\ What has been spoken in your churches about this fine mess of idiocy?

CJ

My Pastor's sermon the day they discussed it in our Church: http://www.stjameschalfont.com/media/audio/05-08-14_Gods_circles_get_larger.mp3

[contriteheart]

I'm curious, has anything been decided?

-Grace

[stumpjumper]

I'm curious, has anything been decided?

-Grace

Yes. No changes were made. ELCA does not ordain practicing gay Pastors and expect either celibacy or marraige as acceptable options for Pastors and they do not bless same-sex unions...

You can read more here on their website about their stance on these issues: http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/

[ottaia]

And the battle is not over yet. (http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=83580) There are still those out there who see the truth and are willing to fight for it.

[C.F.W. Walther]

.

[ctay]

Can you fight it instead of breaking away? Maybe fight it first then if it doesn't work break away...

[paladin_carvin]

I hope they go for it. If I ever get in a relationship like that, I want have the church's blessing. I'm glad at least ELCA is considering that maybe things aren't as everyone thinks, and maybe we can think beyond the limited view of a 1900+ year old book and maybe JUST MAYBE faith can progress like the rest of humanity.

[ProudChristian]

The thing to remember is who the OT was written for. In order for small tribes to survive, they had to produce warriors. Babies=warriors. Homosexuality=no babies=no warriors. The same applies to creationism. Would you try to explain evolution to a primitive people of let them build up the capacity to understand it.

[AngelusSax]

The thing to remember is who the OT was written for. In order for small tribes to survive, they had to produce warriors. Babies=warriors. Homosexuality=no babies=no warriors. The same applies to creationism. Would you try to explain evolution to a primitive people of let them build up the capacity to understand it.

To play devil's advocate here:
The NT also condemns homosexuality (at least from a passive reading of Romans). In fact, it goes further than the OT, which only lambasts homosexual sex between men. Paul says it's wrong for women to be with women as well.

So we can't just say "we must remember who the OT was written for", although to be fair, while the original audience was the Israelites, the eventual audience was/is ALL of God's people, including us.

[ProudChristian]

I always forget about that bit in the NT, but still, Paul is ignored in a lot of things, so how can we argue for this. And you have to remember what he was raised being taught.

[KagomeShuko]

What about ALL the other sins Paul lists? Everybody seems to ignore them. Quote the whole passage. Why are some okay, then, and easily forgivable? Why do "we" choose just a certain one?

Also, in Biblical times, it was believed that a woman was only a vessel and that the sperm was the only thing that carried a life. It was not believed that the woman had any part that played in reproduction other than holding the life and giving birth, thus any sperm "wasted" in a homosexual union was a horrible thing. . .same with masturbation. . .

[JADVirginia]

Well ... go to Sweden. The Lutherans there bless anything. http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19339&sec=17&cont=all.

[achurchmouse]

What about ALL the other sins Paul lists? Everybody seems to ignore them. Quote the whole passage. Why are some okay, then, and easily forgivable? Why do "we" choose just a certain one?

Also, in Biblical times, it was believed that a woman was only a vessel and that the sperm was the only thing that carried a life. It was not believed that the woman had any part that played in reproduction other than holding the life and giving birth, thus any sperm "wasted" in a homosexual union was a horrible thing. . .same with masturbation. . .
excellent point -- it seems his lists included greed, drunkenss and lying and yet I do not seem to remember the last time someone was not allowed to be ordained, or considered a member of a congregation if they were known to do these things.

[112657]

I am not Lutheran, but considering it and following what the ELCA is doing. Has anyone heard that they just passed a policy allowing the blessing of same-sex unions? Or is it just a rumor?

[KagomeShuko]

Haven't heard that, so I'm not really certain. . .

Been really busy, so haven't kept up with all the news. Last I heard, though, was they still had nothing official.

[RegularGuy]

I am not Lutheran, but considering it and following what the ELCA is doing. Has anyone heard that they just passed a policy allowing the blessing of same-sex unions? Or is it just a rumor?
Gotta be a rumor, but you can check out. Policy of that sort is made at Church-wide Assemblies. It didn't happen at this year's Assembly and we don't have another one until 2008.

You could check it out at www.elca.org (http://www.elca.org) to be sure.

[Protoevangel]

excellent point -- it seems his lists included greed, drunkenss and lying and yet I do not seem to remember the last time someone was not allowed to be ordained,
Not intending to debate or anything, but I do have a question...

If one identified themself as a "greeder" (sic), drunk, or lier, had no intention of repenting, and even demanded they and their behavior be accepted as such, would they really be Pastor material? Somehow, I doubt even the ELCA would suggest so.

or considered a member of a congregation if they were known to do these things.
This has never been part of the discussion. The ELCA has never excluded membership in a congregation from homosexuals, the ELCA social statements, and JTF study material make that quite clear.

[RegularGuy]

Not intending to debate or anything, but I do have a question...

If one identified themself as a "greeder" (sic), drunk, or lier, had no intention of repenting, and even demanded they and their behavior be accepted as such, would they really be Pastor material? Somehow, I doubt even the ELCA would suggest so.


Pastors can be disciplined...usually removed from the clergy roster...for financial impropriety, sexual misconduct, and of course heresy. There may be other causes that I am unaware of.

The question facing the ELCA is whether the condition of homosexuality is, in and of itself, a condition of unrepentant sin or a created state. If homosexuality is a matter of unrepentant sin, then your "greeder" analogy is apt.

But if homosexuality is a created state, the question becomes whether homosexuals can express their sexuality in ways that are ethical and, therefore, not an impediment to the practice of ministry.

Thus far, since the ELCA does not sanction same sex unions, the only option for gay clergy, like any unmarried clergy, is celibacy.

[Protoevangel]

Pastors can be disciplined...usually removed from the clergy roster...for financial impropriety, sexual misconduct, and of course heresy. There may be other causes that I am unaware of.
This is my understanding as well. It would seem that achurchmouse may have forgotten this.

The question facing the ELCA is whether the condition of homosexuality is, in and of itself, a condition of unrepentant sin or a created state. If homosexuality is a matter of unrepentant sin, then your "greeder" analogy is apt.

But if homosexuality is a created state, the question becomes whether homosexuals can express their sexuality in ways that are ethical and, therefore, not an impediment to the practice of ministry.

Thus far, since the ELCA does not sanction same sex unions, the only option for gay clergy, like any unmarried clergy, is celibacy.
Yes, I understand the situation within the ELCA (unless it has changed in the past year). I actually led a study on JTFII a couple of years ago in the ELCA congregation I was a part of.

I really can't say more without making it sound as if I am trying to debate, so I will let you be. I was simply trying to understand the commentary by achurchmouse. I didn't think the ELCA approved of greed, drunkenss and lying...