IMHO: ELCA's last straw.

[JoeCatch]

LilLamb:

If by "God didn't say" you mean "God didn't inerrantly and verbally inspire the human authors to write," then yes, I guess I'll cop to this simplification of my view.

GratiaCorpusChristi:

Which of our Lord's words are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. The context of which I speak (and I have mentioned it and not completely dodged it, as you've claimed) is that the behaviors proscribed in both the OT and NT references to "homosexuality" can be understood as a rejection of various practices of surrounding cultures (ritual temple prostitution, sex as a form of dominance, etc.).

QuiltAngel:

Again, if by inerrant you mean transmitted word-for-word from the mind of God, then I'd say I'm not sure that any of it is because that's a view that I reject. I've tried my best to be as up front about my rejection of that view as possible so that it wouldn't be a stumbling block to the conversation. And it is not my intent to dissuade anyone who disagrees with me; as I've written before, I realize that none of us is likely to be dissuaded of anything on the matter. I agree that it's unfortunate, and I apologize if you've gotten the impression that my participation in this conversation has been an attempt to condemn or dissuade anyone.

[LilLamb219]

LilLamb:

If by "God didn't say" you mean "God didn't inerrantly and verbally inspire the human authors to write," then yes, I guess I'll cop to this simplification of my view.


So, in your opinion are you saying the Bible really isn't God's Word and not what God meant for us to read for our faith?

[JimfromOhio]

LilLamb:

If by "God didn't say" you mean "God didn't inerrantly and verbally inspire the human authors to write," then yes, I guess I'll cop to this simplification of my view.

GratiaCorpusChristi:

Which of our Lord's words are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. The context of which I speak (and I have mentioned it and not completely dodged it, as you've claimed) is that the behaviors proscribed in both the OT and NT references to "homosexuality" can be understood as a rejection of various practices of surrounding cultures (ritual temple prostitution, sex as a form of dominance, etc.).

QuiltAngel:

Again, if by inerrant you mean transmitted word-for-word from the mind of God, then I'd say I'm not sure that any of it is because that's a view that I reject. I've tried my best to be as up front about my rejection of that view as possible so that it wouldn't be a stumbling block to the conversation. And it is not my intent to dissuade anyone who disagrees with me; as I've written before, I realize that none of us is likely to be dissuaded of anything on the matter. I agree that it's unfortunate, and I apologize if you've gotten the impression that my participation in this conversation has been an attempt to condemn or dissuade anyone.

Do we accept the Bible as the Word of God, as the sole Authority in all matters of faith and practice, or do we not?

Who has not known that some of the minor facts and miracles of the Bible are the ostensible reasons which many assign why they cannot receive the Book as true, and make it their rule of faith and practice?

God reveals Himself primarily through the pages of Scripture; that is why I believe the Bible as my absolute authority. The bottom line is what the Bible says (The Holy Spirit is the Author (Inspired)). 1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Which of our Lord's words are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

There are several questionable instances. I say questionable because I'm deliberately going to let this slide in hopes of staving off a protracted and fruitless argument.

The context of which I speak (and I have mentioned it and not completely dodged it, as you've claimed) is that the behaviors proscribed in both the OT and NT references to "homosexuality" can be understood as a rejection of various practices of surrounding cultures (ritual temple prostitution, sex as a form of dominance, etc.).

So tell me...

How do you think Romans 1 jives with this understanding of contemporary temple prostitution and master-artisan relationships? Because Romans 1 is discussing culturally transcendent features of certain behaviors, not moral injunctions against contemporary practices.

[DaSeminarian]

GratiaCorpusChristi:

Which of our Lord's words are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. The context of which I speak (and I have mentioned it and not completely dodged it, as you've claimed) is that the behaviors proscribed in both the OT and NT references to "homosexuality" can be understood as a rejection of various practices of surrounding cultures (ritual temple prostitution, sex as a form of dominance, etc.).




So because Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality by name or description it therefore isn't sin? I'd like to see you pass that one by the Judgment seat of God.

The trinity is not mentioned by name, but yet is all over scriptures. Homosexuality is mentioned by the Apostle Paul, though he calls it perversion or "un-natural relations" Seems to me this describes homosexuality right on.

I think you need to go back to sexual education in elementary school. You evidently don't know the definition of a homosexual.

[Radiata]

Jesus says Marriage was for life. Only under exceptional circumstances, that is in the case of adultery, were we able to divorce. The disciples were clearly shocked at the standards Jesus indicated when He quoted Moses as authoritative. They suggested to Jesus that remaining single might be preferable. To this Jesus responded that a celibate, single life, "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" was acceptable. However Jesus made no mention of homosexuality as a third option for those who might have been born that way, nor did He suggest that all have a right to choose their own "sexual preference." He did not give us the slightest reason to suppose every individual has a God-given right to his or her body, to do with it as one wills. Evidently He believed that marriage, though at times demanding, is the only relationship where sexual expression meets with God's approval. This is my reasoning for going against Homosexuality.

And you need to consider the ending of John. John writes that if everything about Jesus was written, the world would not be able to contain the volumes needed to describe it. This poses the question of even though it wasn’t written, it may have been spoken at one point. But if you consider this, then you must also consider all the other rules that Jesus did not say in the gospel. Maybe things were spoken and Paul heard them and wrote them down. This is getting nowhere so I should leave it up to you smarter, older, and more wise people to figure it out.

[Confess]

The Bible outlines what is God pleasing.

Jesus' Bride is the Church. The Church is not in male terms, but in female terms. The Bible clearly tells us that man should leave his family and a woman should leave hers so that they may cleave to each other.

There are no homosexual unions spoken about in the Bible in any light other then negative.

Man's sin is in sexual perversion. This can mean men with children, men with other women, men with men, women with children, women with women, people with beasts etc.

If, as one person on this thread says is true that being homosexual isn't a sin, but the lust of it IS a sin, then you must follow suit that pedophilia isn't a sin, only the lust would be the sin. In the same respect ... the lust to murder would be the sin or the lust of stealing etc.

When we apply other sins to this thinking, we see the whole argument fall apart.

As one liberal woman said on the TV show called "The View" a few weeks ago, "As long as people keep exposing themselves to liberal ideas, their thinking will soon accept it."

This is very true and because of this I shy away from watching programs that highlight those sins that I feel I might struggle with accepting.

I don't want to stumble or get confused.

[JoeCatch]

All right, I'm going to respond to many posts in a single post once again!

LilLamb:

My contention is that the true Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. The scriptures are useful and, yes, even holy because they point to Him. I don't see why one need subscribe to an inerrantist view of them or their origins to accept that. The scriptures are God's word because they point us to God's Word, not because He dictated them word-for-word. And, no, nowhere have I claimed that we need not read them for our faith. I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

JimfromOhio:

God reveals Himself primarily through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, not through any texts. The claim that the scriptures are God's primary revelation is one that, on my view, evinces a deficient Christology and borders on bibliolatry. And I don't understand how the passage from 2 Cor. you cite demands an inerrantist view of scripture.

GratiaCorpusChristi:

You don't want to cite the instances you have in mind of Jesus condeming homosexuality; fair enough. Neither can I respond to those passages in that case. So it seems we'll have to agree to move on.

The Romans passage can be read a number of different ways; the fact that many modern translations simply translate Paul's language into the word 'homosexual' only clouds the matter. For one thing, he writes about those who exchange heterosexual sex for the homosexual variety, so immediately it's unclear to me that he's referring to the practices of those whose innate orientation is homosexual. (For the record, I do reject the view that homosexuality and homosexual attraction are choices or matters of will.) Aside from that, there's an aspect of the commonly-practiced homosexual sex of Paul's time and place that was inherently dominant and subjugating. So, as I've written before, it's not clear to me that it's as open-and-shut a case against all homosexual acts as most conservatives seem to want to make it out to be.

DaSeminarian:

You may be aware that there's a large body of scholarship that contends that the understanding of Paul's proscriptions on sexual behavior as prohibiting homosexuality across the board is a modern one. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the literature here, but I have at the very least familiarized myself with the arguments on both sides. I've offered at least some cursory remarks on how such arguments tend to flow in my comments to GCC above.

And no, it's not my contention that because Jesus doesn't mention it, it must therefore necessarily follow that it is not sin. Nowhere did I make that claim. A claim was made by GCC that He did address it directly, and I merely asked him to point me to those passages. Thus far he has not done so, and has expressed that he does not wish to explore that line of argument any further at this time. I respect his wishes in that regard.

And I'm well aware of the definition of 'homosexual,' thank you. Just because I don't think homosexual activity is immoral doesn't mean that I'm unaware of what it is.

Radiata:

I understand where you're coming from in your remarks on Christ's words on marriage. Nevertheless, it's not my view that sexual orientation or sexual preference is a choice. And I agree with you (almost!) about marriage being the only proper venue for sexual activity. So I'll spell out my view on homosexuality a bit more clearly here in hopes that it'll clarify my position. Notably, it's a position that really doesn't make liberals or conservatives happy:

I do believe that homosexual orientations are a result of original sin and the fact that we live in a fallen world. Nevertheless the fallen world is the one in which we live, and I don't morally condemn anyone with a homosexual orientation any more so than I morally condemn those born with cerebral palsy, for instance. (I don't view sin primarily as a moral condition or category, but more as a metaphysical one, but that's a long digression so I'll save it for now.) But just because I don't morally condemn homosexual preferences, orientations or urges, doesn't mean that I hold homosexuals to any lower standard for sexual ethics than I hold my fellow heterosexuals to. That means that I believe that, like us heterosexuals, homosexuals should find a proper outlet for sex in committed, lifelong, monogamous relationships. Are such relationships between homosexuals the absolute ideal that God has in mind for us? Not quite, but then again neither are cerebral palsy, cancer, dandruff or the common cold. And, considering that homosexuals are naturally unlikely to find sexual fulfillment in sham hetero marriages (and unlikely simply to get over their need for sexual fulfillment), I'm in favor of allowing them to enter into marriage-like partnerships with each other. And the fact that they experience certain effects of original sin that most of us do not, just as someone born with cerebral palsy experiences certain effects of OS that most of us don't, should not automatically preclude them from taking part fully in the life of the church.

And now some general comments:

Ultimately, my rejection of prohibitions on sexual behavior are (not surprisingly) a matter of my particular view of what the nature and role of scripture are. As I've written here, I believe that the purpose of the scriptures (and the source of their authority) is to point us to Christ. And I find in the scriptures a Christ who both fulfills the law and surpasses it when He tells us that all of the law and the prophets are contained in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." And it simply isn't clear to me that non-idolatrous, non-exploitative, non-subjugating, non-selfishly-motivated homosexual sex is a violation of that ultimate call to share in the Good Life.

On my view, Christ's most significant teaching on the Law was that the Law must be surpassed, that living a moral life must flow from genuine love, and not from rule-following. So, Paul clearly had his opinions, as have Christians throughout the history of the church. Nevertheless, my contention is that the only thing that ultimately matters in determining what is and is not a violation of God's Word (Christ, not a collection of texts) is what squares up with Him crucified and the His call to live with each other in the way that God intended for us to live.

Thanks be to God that, through the miracle of the Holy Spirit, the texts of the scriptures still speak to us and point us to Christ, treasures in earthen vessels though they may be! This is most certainly true.

And now I think I've written more than enough for others to respond to for now. I appreciate that the tone of this conversation has overall remained civil.

[JoeCatch]

Confess,

The primary difference between homosexuality and the sins that you list is that those sins all involve some sort of violation of another person. There's no such thing as sex with a child that doesn't violate that child (they can't give proper consent), and there's no such thing as stealing or killing that doesn't violate other moral agents. Homosexuality, on the other hand, can find properly consensual, non-rights-violating, non-exploitative outlets. That's a major distinction that your analogy doesn't capture.

I suppose I differ from you in that I don't feel a need to avoid challenging ideas for the sake of my faith. And there's nothing inherently wrong with your approach or mine in that regard.

[Confess]

Confess,

The primary difference between homosexuality and the sins that you list is that those sins all involve some sort of violation of another person. There's no such thing as sex with a child that doesn't violate that child (they can't give proper consent), and there's no such thing as stealing or killing that doesn't violate other moral agents. Homosexuality, on the other hand, can find properly consensual, non-rights-violating, non-exploitative outlets. That's a major distinction that your analogy doesn't capture.

I suppose I differ from you in that I don't feel a need to avoid challenging ideas for the sake of my faith. And there's nothing inherently wrong with your approach or mine in that regard.
Well, it appears that God doesn't matter much in your opinion. God created male and female, outlined what they are to do and not to do.

But his thoughts on the matter doesn't count.

Oh, and btw: I talked about the lust of doing these sins, not actually doing the sins itself as was the logic of one poster pertaining to homosexuality.

Don't forget, we sin in thought, word and deed.

[JoeCatch]

Confess,

This is a gross misinterpretation of my views and a clear violation of our duty to put the best construction on everything in our dealings with others. I would like an apology from you for this baseless accusation. Thanks.

- Joe

[JoeCatch]

Confess,

Regarding the act/lust distinction, my view is that if an act is wrong, then lusting to do it is likewise wrong. (True, we sometimes cannot control our desires, but such is the nature of original sin.) So it seems that you and I are likely not in disagreement on that point.

Regarding your accusation that God doesn't matter in my opinion, I wrote at length not more than half an hour ago detailing how my view on homosexuality squares up with my understanding of Christ's teachings and with the reality of original sin. Hence my contention that your accusation that I've ignored God completely in my analysis of the issue was baseless and unnecessarily maligning.

[JimfromOhio]

All right, I'm going to respond to many posts in a single post once again!

JimfromOhio:

God reveals Himself primarily through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, not through any texts. The claim that the scriptures are God's primary revelation is one that, on my view, evinces a deficient Christology and borders on bibliolatry. And I don't understand how the passage from 2 Cor. you cite demands an inerrantist view of scripture.

And now some general comments:

Ultimately, my rejection of prohibitions on sexual behavior are (not surprisingly) a matter of my particular view of what the nature and role of scripture are. As I've written here, I believe that the purpose of the scriptures (and the source of their authority) is to point us to Christ. And I find in the scriptures a Christ who both fulfills the law and surpasses it when He tells us that all of the law and the prophets are contained in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." And it simply isn't clear to me that non-idolatrous, non-exploitative, non-subjugating, non-selfishly-motivated homosexual sex is a violation of that ultimate call to share in the Good Life.

On my view, Christ's most significant teaching on the Law was that the Law must be surpassed, that living a moral life must flow from genuine love, and not from rule-following. So, Paul clearly had his opinions, as have Christians throughout the history of the church. Nevertheless, my contention is that the only thing that ultimately matters in determining what is and is not a violation of God's Word (Christ, not a collection of texts) is what squares up with Him crucified and the His call to live with each other in the way that God intended for us to live.

Thanks be to God that, through the miracle of the Holy Spirit, the texts of the scriptures still speak to us and point us to Christ, treasures in earthen vessels though they may be! This is most certainly true.

And now I think I've written more than enough for others to respond to for now. I appreciate that the tone of this conversation has overall remained civil.

While it is true that the WORD is Jesus Christ but we have to remember we all believe in Trinity which we should also include Father and Holy Spirit. All three are ONE as God. God's Word (the Bible) sometimes wounds us deeply and it is imperative because through the Bible, God speaks loudly. The Bible illumines the dark corners of heart and mind by exposing sin but reveals the way of rightousness. The Word of God (Bible) rebukes in order that we may see our faults. It is a conviction produced by the Holy Spirit in our human heart. In other words, it is a matter of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures (see 1 Thess. 2:13). God has provided us the power of His Holy Spirit to enable us to have strong faith through the Word of God.

It appear that we are forgetting the "Holy Spirit". If a Christian is not careful and forget as we are reminded in 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In order to "revere" the Word of God (Bible), we are to submit to the Holy Spirit who is the Author of the Bible. Jesus said in John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

About the scripture verses I referred to, was that we are to Honor the Word. Studying the scriptures requires the Holy Spirit which is inward, not outward. The Holy Spirit is within us believers, Christ dwells in our hearts, and "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27) is the burning core of the Christian faith. Spiritual growth requires us to understand the Scriptures and get to know our God the Father, our Savior the Son, and our comforter & teacher the Holy Spirit. In summary, I am saying that the Holy Spirit gave me assurance of my faith and doctrines I follow. No Church (physical), No Denomination (flesh lead), No pastors or anyone can do this for me. Holy Spirit (as part of the spiritual Church) is the only person who can do this through the Word of God. Churches as well as churches within each denominations and pastors are to edify, teach, encourage and discipline church members to submit to God. Church leaders are our spiritual stewardship who are looking for members spiritual needs and to look at their lives spiritually in from God's perspective. We all are to meet, confess, discuss, pray and edify one another. Church leaders have the responsibility of overseeing of the church (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 5:2-3) and are responsible to rule the congregation (I Tim. 3:5; 5:17; I Thes. 5:12; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24). They judge among the brothers (cf. I Cor. 6:5) and, in contrast to all the members, they do the rebuking (I Tim. 5:20) and the exercise of discipline (Matt. 18:17; I Cor. 5:1-5).

Are we willing to acknowledge the conviction of the Holy Spirit is the question. Since sin often ignores the Holy Spirit... not many will acknowledge. People will (as 2 Timothy 3:7 says) always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. It appears that we ALL habitually love the verses that are easy on us and shy away from the ones that disturb us. Almost everyone practice selecting and ignoring. Are we truly learning the lessons? According to history, I think we are doomed to re-learn hard lessons our spiritual forefathers learned and gave warning of. Historically, people unconsciously select for special attention for whatever reasons or motives might be (i.e. homosexual, abortion, marriage).

[PreachersWife2004]

Confess,

This is a gross misinterpretation of my views and a clear violation of our duty to put the best construction on everything in our dealings with others. I would like an apology from you for this baseless accusation. Thanks.

- Joe

I happen to agree with her, and you won't get an apology from me for it, either.

When you start throwing around that YOU don't believe something is a sin because of how YOU feel...YOU then put God in the back seat.

In every one of your posts where you are trying to "excuse" how you feel, you not only put God in the backseat, you put Him back there with a muzzle and ear plugs.

Your logic that a homosexuality isn't a sin is bunk because all sin violates GOD.

[LilLamb219]

I happen to agree with her, and you won't get an apology from me for it, either.

When you start throwing around that YOU don't believe something is a sin because of how YOU feel...YOU then put God in the back seat.

In every one of your posts where you are trying to "excuse" how you feel, you not only put God in the backseat, you put Him back there with a muzzle and ear plugs.

Your logic that a homosexuality isn't a sin is bunk because all sin violates GOD.

In our discussions we also use scripture to back up why we believe certain things. Joe have you given evidence from scripture that actually backs up what you believe? If so, I must have missed it amongst all this.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Romans passage can be read a number of different ways; the fact that many modern translations simply translate Paul's language into the word 'homosexual' only clouds the matter. For one thing, he writes about those who exchange heterosexual sex for the homosexual variety, so immediately it's unclear to me that he's referring to the practices of those whose innate orientation is homosexual. (For the record, I do reject the view that homosexuality and homosexual attraction are choices or matters of will.) Aside from that, there's an aspect of the commonly-practiced homosexual sex of Paul's time and place that was inherently dominant and subjugating. So, as I've written before, it's not clear to me that it's as open-and-shut a case against all homosexual acts as most conservatives seem to want to make it out to be.

So basically, when Paul refers to homosexual activity as a result of the fall, you're going to ignore the passage on a trumped up case of ambiguity.

Well, as long as you're comfortable with that.

[PreachersWife2004]

In our discussions we also use scripture to back up why we believe certain things. Joe have you given evidence from scripture that actually backs up what you believe? If so, I must have missed it amongst all this.

I suppose it might be difficult to find scripture that would support scripture not being true or not being applicable today versus 2000 years ago. :scratch:

[JimfromOhio]

I suppose it might be difficult to find scripture that would support scripture not being true or not being applicable today versus 2000 years ago. :scratch:

As if God changes when God do not change.

[Luther073082]

I'm not going to jump into this one much but I think the differences between Joe and I demonstrate the differences between Liberal and Conservative ELCA.

[KEPLER]

I do believe that homosexual orientations are a result of original sin and the fact that we live in a fallen world.

Your logic that a homosexuality isn't a sin is bunk because all sin violates GOD.

???

[BigNorsk]

What a complex web things are. Here the ELCA has been talking to Rome to try and achieve agreement, and then just a couple of years after Rome says no homosexual priests, the ELCA move to allow ministers to be in open homosexual relationships.

Well, I guess that's the end to the ecumenical movement. Or not.

Marv

[JoeCatch]

PreachersWife:

I've tried as best I can to explain why I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral, and why my opinion is more than merely a matter of my own feelings. I don't know how else to respond to that charge. I did make explicit reference to God's thoughts on the matter, as I understand them (although clearly your view of what God thinks of homosexuality is different from mine), and that's why I found Confess's accusation to the contrary baseless.

To wit, I wrote: "I find in the scriptures a Christ who both fulfills the law and surpasses it when He tells us that all of the law and the prophets are contained in 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.' And it simply isn't clear to me that non-idolatrous, non-exploitative, non-subjugating, non-selfishly-motivated homosexual sex is a violation of that ultimate call to share in the Good Life. On my view, Christ's most significant teaching on the Law was that the Law must be surpassed, that living a moral life must flow from genuine love, and not from rule-following."

Your argument that homosexuality is a sin after all because all sin violates God seems circular to me. Yes, if an act violates God, then it is sinful; you'll get no argument from me on that. I'd go so far as to grant it as an analytic truth. But whether homosexuality violates God is precisely what the controversy is here!

Kepler's most recent post in this thread has also clearly pointed out an inconsistency between what I've written and the way you and Confess seem to be reading me. I have nothing more to add that his "???" has not captured on that point. It seems GratiaCorpusChristi has also overlooked that I've conceded that homosexuality is a result of the fall, so I'll simply refer him to Kepler's eloquent "???" as well.

LilLamb:

Knowing full well that my response to your request to show you from scripture how I arrive at my view will not meet with your satisfaction, I'll go ahead anyway. First, it's clear that for someone who isn't an inerrantist, simply pointing at a passage isn't going to be the end of the issue, so my way of using scripture to support my claims will no doubt look a lot different from yours. It may look completely unrecognizable!

My appeal to scripture (and I do believe I've sketched out such an appeal already) is not so much a citation of particular passages, but first and foremost a recognition of what the central message of scripture is. As I've already stated (and quoted at length in this very post), I believe that the law that Christ ultimately places us under is the Law of Love, and not of rule-following. My view is that the law, as explicitly stated in rules and prohibitions, is merely a shadow of this ultimate law of love, and this is precisely what Christ Himself meant when He said that all of the law and the prophets are summed up in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Loving, committed, lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships do not, as far as I can tell, violate this ultimate Law of Love that surpasses all rule-based laws.

Now, I recognize that conservative Lutheran exegesis of the passage from Mark 12 will likely differ from mine. And I recognize, as I've written above, that it's unlikely that any of my interlocutors in this conversation will find my explanation satisfactory. Still, I hope that I've shown to the satisfaction of at least some that my view does in fact rest upon more than my own feelings or just what I personally would like to be the case with regard to the issue of homosexuality.

[Luther073082]

What a complex web things are. Here the ELCA has been talking to Rome to try and achieve agreement, and then just a couple of years after Rome says no homosexual priests, the ELCA move to allow ministers to be in open homosexual relationships.

Well, I guess that's the end to the ecumenical movement. Or not.

Marv

Thats not at all true.

If you read the resolution you will find out what it is. (Although still a step in the wrong direction)

Basically its a non-binding resolution to say to the bishops "lighten up on the gay pastors who have homosexual relationships"

For one it does not condone the homosexual relationship it just says "lighten up"

And secondly it is non-binding so the bishop still has the authority to punish as he pleases.

The resolution was basically a appeasment resolution. The pro-gay crowd at the ELCA meeting wouldn't shut up or allow them to move past the homosexual thing. So the conservative wing gave them this so that they could move on.

Still an error IMO but not the dagger in the heart that people want to make it out to be.

[KEPLER]

Well, Joe, the "???" could cut both ways. How can the actions which occur due to something which is itself a result of original sin not be immoral?

If you are arguing that homosexuals are just "playing the hand they were dealt," doesn't that just beg the question? (IOW, aren't we ALL just playing the hand we are dealt?)

K

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What a complex web things are. Here the ELCA has been talking to Rome to try and achieve agreement, and then just a couple of years after Rome says no homosexual priests, the ELCA move to allow ministers to be in open homosexual relationships.

Well, I guess that's the end to the ecumenical movement. Or not.

Marv

Hmm. Good point Marv. My guess is that it will deter the Catholics more than the ELCA, who will keep getting all hot and bothered by Rome (are we allowed to me innuendos of desire in here? is that allowed?).

Well, Joe, the "???" cuts both ways. How can the actions which occur due to something which is itself a result of original sin not be immoral?

If you are arguing that homosexuals are just "playing the hand they were dealt," doesn't that just beg the question?

K
Yeah I noticed he didn't respond to my last post.

[QuiltAngel]

Thats not at all true.

If you read the resolution you will find out what it is. (Although still a step in the wrong direction)

Basically its a non-binding resolution to say to the bishops "lighten up on the gay pastors who have homosexual relationships"

For one it does not condone the homosexual relationship it just says "lighten up"

And secondly it is non-binding so the bishop still has the authority to punish as he pleases.

The resolution was basically a appeasment resolution. The pro-gay crowd at the ELCA meeting wouldn't shut up or allow them to move past the homosexual thing. So the conservative wing gave them this so that they could move on.

Still an error IMO but not the dagger in the heart that people want to make it out to be.

The fact that this was passed, even as an appeasement resolution, shows that the people wanting this was able to move their agenda through and would not back down. Would not take "no" for an answer. They kept pushing until they got part of what they wanted.

Now that they have this in play, they are going to push further the next time. Do you really think that any bishop who will do otherwise is going to be allowed to let their decision stand? That they aren't going to be taken to task for applying church discipline?

That is what much of the concern is about. The ones who wanted this were able to hold the convention "hostage" in a way to get their way. Now that they have that, they aren't going to stop.

I am thankful that there are people like you who find this unacceptable. I pray that you will be able to take that and discuss with those who have the power to make decisions, that this is a very slippery slope. Your church needs your voice of reason.

[JoeCatch]

Kepler,

There are all sorts of actions that result from the consequences of original sin that are not immoral. If we grant that illness, death and all manner of undesirable parts of life are the consequence of original sin, then it's clear that we all perform all sorts of acts that are the consequence of original sin (there'd be no need to perform surgery, use wheelchairs, wear eyeglasses or take medication if there were no original sin, after all) that are not, in and of themselves, immoral. Granted, there are some groups out there (e.g., the Christian Scientists) who claim that they are, but as far as I'm aware there are no Lutherans who accept that view. So an action's occurrence as a result of original sin clearly just isn't a sufficient condition for that action's being immoral.

One of our likely differences is that I simply don't understand sin or original sin primarily in moral terms. On my view sin is not so much a matter of wrongdoing or transgression as it is a matter of separation or taking us out of relationship with God and with each other. On this point I readily concede, for the sake of sparing half a dozen readers from having to point it out, that my view differs from those of more conservative Lutheran theologians. But on my view of sin, the sorts of homosexual relationships I'm defending don't qualify. There's simply nothing about them, as far as I can tell, that takes us out of relationship with God or each other.

GCC:

My response to you was that I agree that homosexuality is a result of the fall, and still do not find that to be sufficient grounds for declaring it immoral. What further clarification are you seeking here?

[BigNorsk]

Thats not at all true.

If you read the resolution you will find out what it is. (Although still a step in the wrong direction)

Basically its a non-binding resolution to say to the bishops "lighten up on the gay pastors who have homosexual relationships"

For one it does not condone the homosexual relationship it just says "lighten up"

And secondly it is non-binding so the bishop still has the authority to punish as he pleases.

The resolution was basically a appeasment resolution. The pro-gay crowd at the ELCA meeting wouldn't shut up or allow them to move past the homosexual thing. So the conservative wing gave them this so that they could move on.

Still an error IMO but not the dagger in the heart that people want to make it out to be.

I've read the resolution, I know it's presented as non-binding, but that never really works. Either resolutions bind or resolutions are nothing really. Stating resolutions are nonbinding really just continues to strengthen the ecclesia as the rulers of the church and takes away from the general assembly.

To think that a bishop is still free to discipline a pastor, especially with the current President in place seems to me to be fantasy. Such a move would be more likely to end in removal of the Bishop than the minister. Basically the resolution takes what was the effective if not official policy in a couple of districts and extends it synod wide.

If the Bishops stay in place, then any splits are likely to be small, but if some Bishops, especially if several Bishops were to stand up and say resign right now, they could probably take a lot of the ELCA with them. I don't expect that to happen, but it could.

I think the resolution will in many ways make it more difficult for a celibate homosexual man to enter the ministry. Before it was clear that as long as he was celibate, no problems. If he wasn't, problems. Now it's not really clear at all. I think it will scare people who might otherwise welcome a celibate minister away, because they don't want to get trapped in a situation of having a minister in what they consider open sin, and with nothing they can do about it. Thus appearing to give their approval.

I sure wouldn't want the pastor living with someone outside of marriage and have to try and teach my children that such is a mistake and sinful, while at the same time having him as the apparant spiritual leader of the congregation. No way, if I'm on the call committee in an ELCA congregation under the current situation, you had better be married, to a woman. Or I'm just not interested in having you. That isn't really right or correct, but the synod has taken away the controls. I tend to test brakes before heading down a mountain, if no brakes are available, I'm not heading down.

Marv

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

My response to you was that I agree that homosexuality is a result of the fall, and still do not find that to be sufficient grounds for declaring it immoral. What further clarification are you seeking here?

My sincere apologies. I must have missed that post.

But... so...

It's a result of the fall, a negative result of the fall listed alongside idolatry... and you still don't think it's immoral?

Well I guess you've a priori determined to go with the world on this issue, buddy.

[LilLamb219]

Since the discussion has somewhat strayed, not far mind you, from the original posting, should discussing homosexuality as a sin become its own thread?

[Lupinus]

For one it does not condone the homosexual relationship it just says "lighten up"

Same difference. If you allow something, you condone it. It doesn't matter to what level you allow it, allowing it is condoning it.

And an unretant sinner who sees nothing wrong with their sin has no place being a pastor or any other office in any church. As I said if they know they are wrong for being drawn that way and pray for forgivness and strength thats one thing, open blatant unretant sin has no place as a pastor.

[PreachersWife2004]

Since the discussion has somewhat strayed, not far mind you, from the original posting, should discussing homosexuality as a sin become its own thread?

I would vote note, since the topic IS homosexuality being allowed in ELCA churches - I think the discussions as to whether homosexuality is a sin or not goes hand in hand together.

But that's just me. :)

[QuiltAngel]

The thing is, there seem to be a few who are debating for debating sake. There is a circular discussion going on and to me, it looks like that can be delved into deeper in another thread.

I think many of us agree that homosexuality is a sin and that they should not be Pastors. That has been shown on this thread.

That is just me and my two cents. Whatever is decided, I will go along with as I am sure LilLamb will too.

[JimfromOhio]

Sin such as homosexuality is becoming a major issue that is based on a human view rather than God's view. This also means a person's opinion who will purposely disagree with God about certain sins (i.e. homosexuality). The source of sin is outside of God. God is Holy. Wherever a lack of holiness, sin exists which cannot exist in the nature of God or in anything that God makes. The ability of Jesus Christ to hate sin because it was sin that Adam separated us from God. It was sin that Christ died for. When the Holy Spirit convicts me not to sin, I tell people that I choose not to simply because I don't want to hurt my relationship with Him. I want to have the peace of conscience, not war within when I sinned. When I sinned, I am grieving the Holy Spirit; "not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30). Churches that have "relaxed" God's holiness without God's permission. This is the topic of God's Holiness. Would God change His holiness in order to conform to the world's desires?

This makes me thinking twice about attending ELCA's local church. Something to ponder.

I do believe very much in being a responsible Christian, however that responsibility is defined for the Christian by the Bible but no humanism reasoning. We should all take a long hard look at what things we consider to be important from God's perspective rather than man's perspective.

[AngelusSax]

Jesus was quite clear that whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever the church looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, when He said so to Peter.

The church gets to decide, whether we like it or not. It's not our authority that matters, or that we're under.

[PreachersWife2004]

Jesus was quite clear that whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever the church looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, when He said so to Peter.

The church gets to decide, whether we like it or not. It's not our authority that matters, or that we're under.

Huh?

[Lupinus]

Huh?
the church decides whats right or wrong?

thats the best I can make. But I second your huh cause Im far from sure lol

[AngelusSax]

Yeah, the church decides what parts of the law still apply, and what don't. IT was a Rabbinical tradition of binding and loosing that Jesus says to Peter that he (the church) would get to do.

The law's application, in part and in whole, has been decided by the church over the course of many years. They did it in Acts before Acts was written for them to fall back on as proof they were allowed to strip 613 laws down to 4.

Why should the church today have any less power? God has never said, to my knowledge, that it was a one-time occurrence allowed.

[Radiata]

Definately not supporting that the Church defines right and wrong. That's what I loved about the Lutheran Church until I found out about all the politics in it. I loved that we followed scripture wholly. Now I find out that ELCA accepts gay pastors. It's so wrong yet people are debating it. Look at the mormons and how far they strayed because they thought that they should follow their own bible. There are many other examples of how desire over scripture has caused trouble, but I don't see the reason for going into them.

This is a crybaby post. Don't think this is really me. I am usually more organized than this.

[Radiata]

Yeah, the church decides what parts of the law still apply, and what don't. IT was a Rabbinical tradition of binding and loosing that Jesus says to Peter that he (the church) would get to do.

The law's application, in part and in whole, has been decided by the church over the course of many years. They did it in Acts before Acts was written for them to fall back on as proof they were allowed to strip 613 laws down to 4.
Actually no it doesn't. It's called interpreting scripture with scripture. Put quite simpilly, if you can prove a law wrong with the new testament, follow the new testament. If nothing contradicts the old testament, follow the old testament. It's that easy.
Why should the church today have any less power? God has never said, to my knowledge, that it was a one-time occurrence allowed.Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers; the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever.

[Confess]

Jesus was quite clear that whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever the church looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, when He said so to Peter.

The church gets to decide, whether we like it or not. It's not our authority that matters, or that we're under.
Talk about taking the office of the keys and redefining them.

[DaRev]

The notion that the "Church" defines God's Law is VERY Roman Catholic. This is precisely why the Reformation occured. The notion is ridiculous.

[PreachersWife2004]

The notion that the "Church" defines God's Law is VERY Roman Catholic. This is precisely why the Reformation occured. The notion is ridiculous.

:thumbsup:

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The notion that the "Church" defines God's Law is VERY Roman Catholic. This is precisely why the Reformation occured. The notion is ridiculous.
Yup.

[Radiata]

The notion that the "Church" defines God's Law is VERY Roman Catholic. This is precisely why the Reformation occured. The notion is ridiculous.
He said it better than me. ^_^

[Studeclunker]

The notion that the "Church" defines God's Law is VERY Roman Catholic. This is precisely why the Reformation occured. The notion is ridiculous.

This is most certainly true.

I believe if we wrapped Martin Luther, Melangthon's, and all the other reformers (including John Calvin's, and Zwinglii's) coffins in copper wire, that we could produce sufficient power to light the city of Whittenburg for months! They must be truely spinning in thier graves. God help us all.:cry:

[DaRev]

This is most certainly true.

I believe if we wrapped Martin Luther, Melangthon's, and all the other reformers (including John Calvin's, and Zwinglii's) coffins in copper wire, that we could produce sufficient power to light the city of Whittenburg for months! They must be truely spinning in thier graves. God help us all.:cry:

^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ :thumbsup:

[Lupinus]

Well now that global warming is solved due to Stude's plan whats next on the agenda?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well now that global warming is solved due to Stude's plan whats next on the agenda?
Bah. It was never a problem.

Oh, and, to Stude, HAHAHA! That's fantastic. Makes me want to play with magnets for hours.

[Studeclunker]

PreachersWife:

I've tried as best I can to explain why I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral, and why my opinion is more than merely a matter of my own feelings. I don't know how else to respond to that charge. I did make explicit reference to God's thoughts on the matter, as I understand them (although clearly your view of what God thinks of homosexuality is different from mine), and that's why I found Confess's accusation to the contrary baseless.

To wit, I wrote: "I find in the scriptures a Christ who both fulfills the law and surpasses it when He tells us that all of the law and the prophets are contained in 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.' And it simply isn't clear to me that non-idolatrous, non-exploitative, non-subjugating, non-selfishly-motivated homosexual sex is a violation of that ultimate call to share in the Good Life. On my view, Christ's most significant teaching on the Law was that the Law must be surpassed, that living a moral life must flow from genuine love, and not from rule-following."

Your argument that homosexuality is a sin after all because all sin violates God seems circular to me. Yes, if an act violates God, then it is sinful; you'll get no argument from me on that. I'd go so far as to grant it as an analytic truth. But whether homosexuality violates God is precisely what the controversy is here!

Kepler's most recent post in this thread has also clearly pointed out an inconsistency between what I've written and the way you and Confess seem to be reading me. I have nothing more to add that his "???" has not captured on that point. It seems GratiaCorpusChristi has also overlooked that I've conceded that homosexuality is a result of the fall, so I'll simply refer him to Kepler's eloquent "???" as well.

LilLamb:

Knowing full well that my response to your request to show you from scripture how I arrive at my view will not meet with your satisfaction, I'll go ahead anyway. First, it's clear that for someone who isn't an inerrantist, simply pointing at a passage isn't going to be the end of the issue, so my way of using scripture to support my claims will no doubt look a lot different from yours. It may look completely unrecognizable!

My appeal to scripture (and I do believe I've sketched out such an appeal already) is not so much a citation of particular passages, but first and foremost a recognition of what the central message of scripture is. As I've already stated (and quoted at length in this very post), I believe that the law that Christ ultimately places us under is the Law of Love, and not of rule-following. My view is that the law, as explicitly stated in rules and prohibitions, is merely a shadow of this ultimate law of love, and this is precisely what Christ Himself meant when He said that all of the law and the prophets are summed up in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Loving, committed, lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships do not, as far as I can tell, violate this ultimate Law of Love that surpasses all rule-based laws.

Now, I recognize that conservative Lutheran exegesis of the passage from Mark 12 will likely differ from mine. And I recognize, as I've written above, that it's unlikely that any of my interlocutors in this conversation will find my explanation satisfactory. Still, I hope that I've shown to the satisfaction of at least some that my view does in fact rest upon more than my own feelings or just what I personally would like to be the case with regard to the issue of homosexuality.

I must say that though your arguments are persuasive, they are simply sophistry. If one is going to present a novel idea, it's best to back it with authoritive witness of some kind. Thus, your ideas are outré to say the least.

The Holy Bible is quite outspoken on this subject. The Apostle Paul left no doubt as to his views and therefore those of the Holy Spirit (else he would have differentiated). Anti-nominism is a Heresy. One of the worst. Permit me please to demonstrate with the clear word of Scripture:

Romans 1:21 - 27 (Phillips paraphrase):
“They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does...”
“They gave up God: and therefore God gave them up -- to be the playthings of their own foul desires in dishonouring their own bodies.”
“God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another. Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity.”

Romans 6:15 & 18:
“Now, what shall we do? Shall we go on sinning because we have no Law to condemn us any more, but are living under grace? Never!”
“Then, released from the service of sin, you entered the service of righteousness.”

Galatians 3: 21-23:
“Is the Law then to be looked upon as a contradiction of the promise? Certainly not, for if there could have been a law which gave men spiritual life than that law would have produced righteousness (which would have been, of course, in full harmony with the purpose of the promise). But as things are, the scripture has all men “imprisoned” for their sins, because they are found guilty by the Law, that to men in such condition the promise might come to release all who believe in Jesus Christ. “

Romans 6:1&2: (NKJV)
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound?
Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”

Therefore, though the Law no longer has power to condemn us, it still instructs and chastises us. We are not to walk as the godless do. We are, instead, to walk in the ways of the one and ever-living God. Does this mean that all homosexuals (of both sexes) are bound automatically to Hell? No. They, like all sinners, are called to repentance and offered forgiveness. Continuing in the practices of Homosexuality, however, demonstrates a lack of repentance. Therefore, two homosexuals who wish a same-sex marriage are not repenting. Quite the reverse!

So one might argue that the other six deadly sins are damnable offences as well. True, they are. Only, however, if there is no repentance. If one has trouble with gluttony, alcoholism, sexual sins (of any sort, including but not limited to homosexuality), etc, and repents, there is grace and forgiveness. These people who have a persistent tendency to these problems are also exempt for leadership roles in the church including Clergy. Their weaknesses make them prone to error in judgement and ideology.

I’m not surprised at this recent action by the ELCA. Quite the reverse. I’ve expected it for quite some time. Sadly, all Lutherans will be tarred with the same brush by the media and the ignorant public.

[RayJGentry]

Actually the Law always has the power to condemn us. That's why we're still 100% sinner. Because the Law so thoroughly condemns me to death, I must look to Christ. I must die to that Law now and let Christ be born in me. That saves me from the law. If the law could no longer condemn me, then I wouldn't need Christ to be alive in me. It's because the Law condemns me that I need Christ and His Grace, not because I have Christ and His grace the law doesn't matter anymore.

[BigNorsk]

That was a real move of political genius to send in the former President of Luther Seminary to lead the assembly on a study of human sexuality based on the first ten verses of Galatians.

http://www.elca.org/ScriptLib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?article=3671

Marv

[Studeclunker]

Actually the Law always has the power to condemn us. That's why we're still 100% sinner. Because the Law so thoroughly condemns me to death, I must look to Christ. I must die to that Law now and let Christ be born in me. That saves me from the law. If the law could no longer condemn me, then I wouldn't need Christ to be alive in me. It's because the Law condemns me that I need Christ and His Grace, not because I have Christ and His grace the law doesn't matter anymore.

Well... sort of. The Law does matter. It's now the framework whithin we live and work out our lives. However, we have been washed in the blood of the Lamb, His righteousness has been imputed to us. As the Word says, "...not by works, lest anyone should boast..." The fact still remains that God the Father sees us through Christ. It's as though a filter, Christ, stands between us and the Father. Because of this the Father sees us as pure and white. Or as it is credited to Luther, 'God sees us like a snow covered dunghill. All is beautiful and white on the outside whilst the interior is still filthy, smelly, and disgusting.' The Devil stands there with a list of our transgressions. Christ removes the condemnation of the Law which is what the Devil is using to attempt to Damn us. So, therefore, no, the Law no longer condemns us. Christ redeems us from the condemnation of the Law through his own righteousness.

Ah yes, Marv. The 'Statement On Human Sexuality', I wondered when that heresy would finally be accepted as church doctrine in the ELCA. This is why I left and joined the LCMS. I knew that it was only a matter of time before the church hierarchy abandoned the truth and this doctrine was shoved down the laity's throat (or up somewhere else, but that's another issue...). The day has finally arrived when the ELCA has become eompletely hetrodox. Sad and inevitable, but true.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well... sort of. The Law does matter. It's now the framework whithin we live and work out our lives. However, we have been washed in the blood of the Lamb, His righteousness has been imputed to us. As the Word says, "...not by works, lest anyone should boast..." The fact still remains that God the Father sees us through Christ. It's as though a filter, Christ, stands between us and the Father. Because of this the Father sees us as pure and white. Or as it is credited to Luther, 'God sees us like a snow covered dunghill. All is beautiful and white on the outside whilst the interior is still filthy, smelly, and disgusting.' The Devil stands there with a list of our transgressions. Christ removes the condemnation of the Law which is what the Devil is using to attempt to Damn us. So, therefore, no, the Law no longer condemns us. Christ redeems us from the condemnation of the Law through his own righteousness.

I.e., the law no longer condemns (second use), but there is still the third use of the law, which guides in right living (Solid Declaration, On the Third Use of the Law).

[BigNorsk]

"completely heterodox" is an oxymoron.

Marv

[Luther073082]

That was a real move of political genius to send in the former President of Luther Seminary to lead the assembly on a study of human sexuality based on the first ten verses of Galatians.

http://www.elca.org/ScriptLib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?article=3671

Marv


It was only based on Galatians? What in the world happened to the other 65 books?

I want the ELCA to just split already. . . lets just get it overwith. It was a nice try but the merger didn't work.

[KEPLER]

"completely heterodox" is an oxymoron.

Marv
Oxymoron, or redundant?

[Studeclunker]

GCC we are in accord.:thumbsup:

Oxymoron? Is that a moron who is short on oxygen? If so, much of the administration of the ELCA seems to fit that term.:scratch:

From Luther073082:
I want the ELCA to just split already. . . lets just get it overwith. It was a nice try but the merger didn't work.

This is most certainly true... However, we need a large contingent of the LCMS to split off to the more liberal ELCA branch. Actually, the more conservative ELCA group would fit into the LCMS quite well. I don't know! The whole thing makes my head ache.:help:

[Luther073082]

This is most certainly true... However, we need a large contingent of the LCMS to split off to the more liberal ELCA branch. Actually, the more conservative ELCA group would fit into the LCMS quite well. I don't know! The whole thing makes my head ache.:help:

Personally I don't want to go to the LCMS unless aboslutly necessary. Open communion and being more eccumental then the LCMS are very important to me. I also belive a celibate gay pastor makes an acceptable pastor. But to come down hard on those who break celibacy. (As hard as they would a single pastor who fornicated)

[Radiata]

Edit deleted.

[Confess]

This is most certainly true... However, we need a large contingent of the LCMS to split off to the more liberal ELCA branch. Actually, the more conservative ELCA group would fit into the LCMS quite well. I don't know! The whole thing makes my head ache.:help:

The more conservative ELCA would fit with the liberal LCMS which in effect would turn back the clock of the ELCA .... ohhhhh ... about 10 years, but it would soon return to what it is today.

You see the problem is the lack of Biblical standards which Scripture clearly outlines and our Lutheran confessions witness to. Both the conservative ELCA and liberal LCMS have a hard time dealing with the confessions.

What is needed, is to stick to the historic Lutheran confession and go nowhere else lest you slide down the path of the ELCA.

But for those like Luther 07..., he is not one that can in good conscience say that he has an unshakable faith in what he believes which forces him in a position of acceptance of various beliefs which makes him ecumenical and forces him to look for a church that is like him ecumenically.

[Luther073082]

But for those like Luther 07..., he is not one that can in good conscience say that he has an unshakable faith in what he believes which forces him in a position of acceptance of various beliefs which makes him ecumenical and forces him to look for a church that is like him ecumenically.

Umm I'm not sure how to respond to this other then to ask you not to question my faith. I don't think its even worth my time to explain to you my positions and why I feel they are scripturally sound.

[BigNorsk]

I don't know why people have to keep lobbing insults at you. I tell you I think you know more at 25 than I did.

We're small but if there's one close try the Lutheran Brethren. We come from a pietistic background so some congregations can still be pretty worried if you go to the bar or something but most are past that. Congregation finder is at http://www.clba.org/churches.phtml

I left the ELCA myself having grown up in an ALC congregation. Spent some years wandering. Ended up back with Luther.

Marv

[JimfromOhio]

In my area, I will be visiting at least 3 Lutheran churches.

One is LCMS which is about 2 miles down the road.

The other is an ELCA conservative church which is also about 2 miles down the road which fits with LCMS's liberal church :).

The other is also an ELCA but alittle more liberal (from what I understand) which is right next door to our home. We can walk from our back yard, cut across the Church's parking lot and walk in the door within minutes.

My wife and I will be checking each of the local Churches. First church is the ECLA's conservative church and go from there.

Regarding to sticking with "organizational" Church for whatever the motives may be, we need to remember that each local church is an assembly of believers and is made up of real spiritual people. When we look in the mirror, we are the part of the spiritual Church. If the people are submitting to the Holy Spirit, who will give them fruit. Not the Church organization, nor the Bible nor Tradition. The Church is looking for looking for ways to conform the world's desires while God is looking for better Christians. The Holy Spirit does not flow through Church's systems, but through Christians. He is not limited to man's faults because He is beyond what we think its impossible.

[Studeclunker]

<NOTE> Coloured emphisis is mine, not Jim's.

Jim, if you will kindly forgive me for quoting only the part of your post I'm addressing:


Regarding to sticking with "organizational" Church for whatever the motives may be, we need to remember that each local church is an assembly of believers and is made up of real spiritual people. When we look in the mirror, we are the part of the spiritual Church. If the people are submitting to the Holy Spirit, who will give them fruit. Not the Church organization, nor the Bible nor Tradition. The Church is looking for looking for ways to conform the world's desires while God is looking for better Christians. The Holy Spirit does not flow through Church's systems, but through Christians. He is not limited to man's faults because He is beyond what we think its impossible.

This is most certainly true, with the cavet that, "The church is looking for ways to conform (to) the world's desires..." is the error that the ELCA is committing. The Church belongs to Christ, not the world. It is a collection of citizens of Heaven, aliens (non-citizens) to this world. As long as we conform to the universal church which conforms to the requirements of Scripture, we are safe. When one gets involved in practices like 'Biblical Criticism', one has a tendency to... wander to and fro with every wind of change and philosophy.

[JimfromOhio]

<NOTE> Coloured emphisis is mine, not Jim's.

Jim, if you will kindly forgive me for quoting only the part of your post I'm addressing:



This is most certainly true, with the cavet that, "The church is looking for ways to conform (to) the world's desires..." is the error that the ELCA is committing. The Church belongs to Christ, not the world. It is a collection of citizens of Heaven, aliens (non-citizens) to this world. As long as we conform to the universal church which conforms to the requirements of Scripture, we are safe. When one gets involved in practices like 'Biblical Criticism', one has a tendency to... wander to and fro with every wind of change and philosophy.

God is NOT limited through organizations but body of believers. If anyone is comparing what a Church really means organizational wise, then we forgot why Luther was trying to reform the Catholic Church.

The Greek word for church is ekklesia, which means "an assembly of called-out ones. " The church is made up of people called by God to be His children. We have become united with all other believers by faith in Christ, who said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Jesus meant He would gather together a body of believers. He wasn't talking about organizations; He was talking about people.

Even if the denomination has gone liberal does not mean all of the local churches has gone liberal.

A church is an assembly of believers. Just like a family, a local church is our spiritual family. It is only in the local body to which one is committed that there can be the level of intimacy that is required for spiritual growth with brothers/sisters in Christ "to love and good deeds." The spiritual Church is one body with many members, ordered in such a way that, through the one Spirit, believers may be built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God. Christians are called to a committed fellowship of believers in worsihp and communion. I would not stay away simply because there are hypocrites, God is saying: "There's always room for one more".

[RayJGentry]

if you go back and look at my post, i never said the law doesn't matter. it's a comparison statement saying what is true and what isn't. in the untrue statement i said it doesn't matter.

[Studeclunker]

God is NOT limited through organizations but body of believers. If anyone is comparing what a Church really means organizational wise, then we forgot why Luther was trying to reform the Catholic Church.

The Greek word for church is ekklesia, which means "an assembly of called-out ones. " The church is made up of people called by God to be His children. We have become united with all other believers by faith in Christ, who said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Jesus meant He would gather together a body of believers. He wasn't talking about organizations; He was talking about people.

Even if the denomination has gone liberal does not mean all of the local churches has gone liberal.

A church is an assembly of believers. Just like a family, a local church is our spiritual family. It is only in the local body to which one is committed that there can be the level of intimacy that is required for spiritual growth with brothers/sisters in Christ "to love and good deeds." The spiritual Church is one body with many members, ordered in such a way that, through the one Spirit, believers may be built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God. Christians are called to a committed fellowship of believers in worsihp and communion. I would not stay away simply because there are hypocrites, God is saying: "There's always room for one more".

In this, Jim, we are in accord.

Where I have trouble is when a 'body of believers' strays into error and teaches such. A heretic is a heretic and there's no excuse for it with the Holy Bible now available in, literaly, any language. To paraphrase the great Apostle:

"There is neither Roman Catholic nor Lutheran, Bretheran nor Baptist, nor any other denomination. For all are one in Christ. And if they are Christ's then they are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." Amen:crossrc:

[Studeclunker]

if you go back and look at my post, i never said the law doesn't matter. it's a comparison statement saying what is true and what isn't. in the untrue statement i said it doesn't matter.

Forgive me, Ray, for being dense in my old age. I went back through your posts and still don't follow the reason for the above post.

Juxtaposition is a tecnique the Apostle Paul used quite a lot, "Food for the body and the body for food, but the body perishes..." "Should we sin all the more that Grace may abound? Certainly not!" etc. Sadly, this type of argument can be taken out of context and misunderstood nowdays. This kind of tecnique is difficult to get right so that people understand it. So, if I misunderstood, please forgive me.:scratch:

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wish there was one denomination. But not at the expense of sound doctrine and right worship.

[Confess]

Umm I'm not sure how to respond to this other then to ask you not to question my faith. I don't think its even worth my time to explain to you my positions and why I feel they are scripturally sound.
I am sorry if that offended you, I was just going on what you have stated in the past few days about a person not being able to have absolute faith in various doctrines.

[Studeclunker]

I wish there was one denomination. But not at the expense of sound doctrine and right worship.

Amen! Come soon, Lord Jesus.:amen:

[DaSeminarian]

Umm I'm not sure how to respond to this other then to ask you not to question my faith. I don't think its even worth my time to explain to you my positions and why I feel they are scripturally sound.

I don't think she was questioning your faith, but more as to why your faith allows you to believe that specific positions are okay and scripturally sound.

I think that since you were the one to begin this thread and you want to be understood clearly that it is worth your time to clearly enunciate your positions and why they are scripturally sound, but if you do so expect that those who disagree with those positions to chime in and give you reason why they might not be as scripturally sound as you first believed.

[Luther073082]

I don't think she was questioning your faith, but more as to why your faith allows you to believe that specific positions are okay and scripturally sound.

I think that since you were the one to begin this thread and you want to be understood clearly that it is worth your time to clearly enunciate your positions and why they are scripturally sound, but if you do so expect that those who disagree with those positions to chime in and give you reason why they might not be as scripturally sound as you first believed.

My faith allows me to take positions based completely off of scripture. The book of concord is not the basis of my faith.

The main differences between myself and the LCMS are the use of altar pulpit fellowship and the use of celibate gay clergy. Really I don't have many differences in my view from the LCMS other then those.

First the first, the LCMS constantly uses the scripture from coorinthians about taking the right attitude about communion. The problem is the scripture says "Each person aught to examine themselves." I am not allowed to examine another person. If I am examining another person without full knowledge of anything then I am judging them. (Which is a sin)

Therefore the way the LCMS applies communion practices is incorrect and sinful. I am a member of the ELCA but because of the people I go to church with they have determined I am not able to receive communion. EVEN THOUGH I myself hold firmly to the doctrine of Real Presence (As the LCMS does). Therefore because of my membership I am being cut off from the Eucharist in a sinful manner. (This sort of reminds me of the pharisee's complaining about Jesus eating with sinners and tax collectors although I don't like to view ELCA members in that kind of light. But its still death by association.)

It would be more correct for the LCMS to print in its service pamphlet we ask that you belive the following (core doctrines) before seeking communion at our table. This would inform the laity but at the same time not appoint anyone as judge over someone because of their membership. If someone does take communion without beliveing in what you ask then they are the sinner and there was nothing you can do. I have learned I can't stop anyone from being a sinner, I can't stop my brother from fornicating. I'd like to but I can't. Your paragraph in the pamphlet is the most you can do to place a warning to help someone avoid that sin.


Secondly the appointment of celibate gay clergy. God hates the act of homosexuality. That is pretty clear, however I have never seen anything to the effect of a person understanding themselves to be gay being a sinner. Yes they are attracted to men but its in the same way I am attracted to women.

A single pastor is acceptable as long as he is celibate til he chooses to marry. And married pastors must remain faithful to their wives. There is always the chance of a single pastor engaging in fornication or a married pastor engaging in adultry. There is no greater chance that a homosexual who has taken an oath to refrain from all homosexual activities will sin then there is a chance of a single heterosexual pastor sinning himself.

Therefore I see the cutting off of gay clergy (who vow to remain celibate) is nothing but a homophobic attempt to twist the scriptures.

Now if the gay clergy does violate their vow of celibacy they must be diciplined in the same manner as a single pastor who fornicated.

Those are my biggest two differences with confessionals. Although I still wonder how they figure the papacy constitutes the anti-christ, but that is just a minor thing.

[DaSeminarian]

My faith allows me to take positions based completely off of scripture. The book of concord is not the basis of my faith.

But since the Book of Concord is scriptural so it is not entirely outside of scripture.


The main differences between myself and the LCMS are the use of altar pulpit fellowship and the use of celibate gay clergy. Really I don't have many differences in my view from the LCMS other then those.

One of the reason for there being no altar and pulpit fellowship is that the ELCA allows women clergy and now because of the recent "edict" from Chicago, gay clergy as well. The former is a result of the latter.


First the first, the LCMS constantly uses the scripture from 1 Corinthians about taking the right attitude about communion. The problem is the scripture says "Each person aught to examine themselves." I am not allowed to examine another person. If I am examining another person without full knowledge of anything then I am judging them. (Which is a sin)

You're right it is not within the scope of your vocation.


Therefore the way the LCMS applies communion practices is incorrect and sinful.

Who's judging now?


Firstly, Are you attending an LCMS church or ELCA? Truthfully you are not a member of the synod, but a member of a church within the synod. No layperson in any church in the LCMS is a member of the Synod. The pastor and the church are members but not individual parishioners.

Secondly, there is a dual relationship at communion. The vertical which is your relationship with God. The horizontal is your state of confession with other believers. By going to communion at an LCMS church you are confessing that you agree with them that Gays should not clergy nor should women. If, however, you believe that Gays should have the right to preach in church as well as women you should not take communion at that church. It is for your benefit that you are in agreement with all who take communion for that if you don't that is what you take to your judgement.

[quote]
Therefore because of my membership I am being cut off from the Eucharist in a sinful manner. (This sort of reminds me of the pharisee's complaining about Jesus eating with sinners and tax collectors although I don't like to view ELCA members in that kind of light. But its still death by association.)
[quote]

See my statement above your last one.

[quote]
It would be more correct for the LCMS to print in its service pamphlet we ask that you belive the following (core doctrines) before seeking communion at our table. This would inform the laity but at the same time not appoint anyone as judge over someone because of their membership. If someone does take communion without beliveing in what you ask then they are the sinner and there was nothing you can do. I have learned I can't stop anyone from being a sinner, I can't stop my brother from fornicating. I'd like to but I can't. Your paragraph in the pamphlet is the most you can do to place a warning to help someone avoid that sin.

Most of them do print this in their bulletin or the Pastor states so at the beginning of the service.


Secondly the appointment of celibate gay clergy. God hates the act of homosexuality. That is pretty clear, however I have never seen anything to the effect of a person understanding themselves to be gay being a sinner. Yes they are attracted to men but its in the same way I am attracted to women. [quote]

Huh? If they have an attraction to one of the same sex they are capable of homosexuality regardless whether they have committed an act or not. There have been cases of men in their vicarage year which acted out on their attraction and were immediately dismissed from the seminary. It is not the same way you are attracted to women. Can a man procreate from another man? We were created to multiply the earth.

[quote]
A single pastor is acceptable as long as he is celibate til he chooses to marry. And married pastors must remain faithful to their wives. There is always the chance of a single pastor engaging in fornication or a married pastor engaging in adultry. There is no greater chance that a homosexual who has taken an oath to refrain from all homosexual activities will sin then there is a chance of a single heterosexual pastor sinning himself.


We are all sinful human beings and there is always the potential for us to sin and sin greatly. But as DaRev pointed out the Pastor is to be above reproach. He has a greater responsibility to his parish.

Therefore I see the cutting off of gay clergy (who vow to remain celibate) is nothing but a homophobic attempt to twist the scriptures.

Now if the gay clergy does violate their vow of celibacy they must be diciplined in the same manner as a single pastor who fornicated.

Those are my biggest two differences with confessionals. Although I still wonder how they figure the papacy constitutes the anti-christ, but that is just a minor thing.

But the ELCA has put the kabosh on this and will look the other way on these relationships. So how is this beneficial to the Kingdom of God?

[Luther073082]

One of the reason for there being no altar and pulpit fellowship is that the ELCA allows women clergy and now because of the recent "edict" from Chicago, gay clergy as well. The former is a result of the latter.

I'm not for women clergy and I oppose the edict (although it doesn't allow non-celibate gay celergy just lightens up for them).




Where in the bible does it say there must be complete agreement on doctrine in order to share communion?

And by the way I do personally agree with them on that.

[quote]
Most of them do print this in their bulletin or the Pastor states so at the beginning of the service.

Every LCMS church I've been to says that if you are not in LCMS or a church with full communion relationship with them (all confessional lutheran) then you can not receive communion.


Huh? If they have an attraction to one of the same sex they are capable of homosexuality regardless whether they have committed an act or not. There have been cases of men in their vicarage year which acted out on their attraction and were immediately dismissed from the seminary. It is not the same way you are attracted to women. Can a man procreate from another man? We were created to multiply the earth.

We where created to serve God not to multiply the earth. Paul said singleness was better then marriage.

A single pastor is capable of fornication and a married one capable of adultry. Doesn't mean they will do it. There have been many celibate gay pastors and lay members of the body of christ as well. Everyone deserves a shot, everyone is equally capable of sin.


We are all sinful human beings and there is always the potential for us to sin and sin greatly. But as DaRev pointed out the Pastor is to be above reproach. He has a greater responsibility to his parish.

I agree single pastors who fornicate must be diciplined. Gay pastors who break celibacy must be diciplined. Married pastors who committed adultry must be diciplined. All of them harshly.


But the ELCA has put the kabosh on this and will look the other way on these relationships. So how is this beneficial to the Kingdom of God?

Its not, I've said that many times. But its still death by association. My parish doesn't even agree with the ruling, I don't know anyone who does. But I'm killed by association because my parish carries the label ELCA. Even though I don't agree on women pastors or lightening up on homosexuality.

On top of that I havn't seen scripture that indicates that a person must agree with the congregation on all or nearly all doctrine in order to receive communion. And every LCMS church I've been to prints "We ask that visitors and guests who are not members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or in a church in a full commion relationship with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod not take communion during the service."

Besides, I've met many LCMS members who don't agree with you much on doctrine but go out of tradition. And they take communion.

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay, folks. Let's get one thing clear here.

The phrase "lighten up" is a joke.

The wages of sin is death. The church can't really lighten up on that, can they?

This memorial was put forth not only to silence a group of outspoken people, it was put forth so that gay men in relationships could be pastors, which is an abomination to God's word. It is sick and twisted, and the fact that a CHURCH of all things is telling its bishops and pastors to "lighten up" on those found to be sinning is ludicrous. If a heterosexual pastor was caught in an affair, you can bet there would be no "lighten up" comments...no, that pastor would be taken out of his office, "defrocked" as many have said, as well he should be. The fact that someone is gay doesn't give them special rights, or allow for special treatment.

[JimfromOhio]

Anyone who practices sin (whether it is homosexual, drugs or adultery or whatever) is not fit to become a pastor. Pastors are sinners like we are however, they have to live in higher standards than regular Christians because they are our spiritual leaders. When a pastor step beyond the Word of God, he has overstepped the bounds of his authority. God reveals Himself primarily through the pages of Scripture; that is why I believe the Bible as my absolute authority. 1 Peter 4:11 instructs me to handle biblical truth: "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." If the Bible is true, then it is also authoritative. As divinely revealed truth, it carries the full weight of God's own authority. Teachers are to have good reputation. In the book of Titus, the requirements are: Show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose they may be ashamed because those have nothing bad to say about them. That teachers are to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age. In 2 Corinthians 7:2 says that we "make room for others in our hearts. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have exploited no one." This is where "accountability" comes in. In 1 Timothy 3:1-3: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

Of course, those who do NOT practice sin like the following: Can God use me despite my sinful past? I have found that God uses unqualified people to accomplish God’s spiritual purposes. Here are the following God’s CHOSEN/CALLED unqualified people to serve Him.
1. Lot got drunk and committed incest.
2. Abraham doubted God and committed adultery.
3. Jacob deceived his father.
4. Moses murdered.
5. David murdered and committed adultery.
6. Jonah got angry with God (in a sinful way)
7. Paul (Saul) murdered Christians
8. All 12 of Jesus disciples were not qualified to be the Apostles however Jesus called them.

There is a huge differences of us being sinners and practicing sinners.

[Confess]

Okay, folks. Let's get one thing clear here.

The phrase "lighten up" is a joke.



CHILL OUT! :wave:

[Luther073082]

Okay, folks. Let's get one thing clear here.

The phrase "lighten up" is a joke.

The wages of sin is death. The church can't really lighten up on that, can they?

This memorial was put forth not only to silence a group of outspoken people, it was put forth so that gay men in relationships could be pastors, which is an abomination to God's word. It is sick and twisted, and the fact that a CHURCH of all things is telling its bishops and pastors to "lighten up" on those found to be sinning is ludicrous. If a heterosexual pastor was caught in an affair, you can bet there would be no "lighten up" comments...no, that pastor would be taken out of his office, "defrocked" as many have said, as well he should be. The fact that someone is gay doesn't give them special rights, or allow for special treatment.

Oh I agree, it was a bad resolution and if the resolution affected my church I'd be leaving right now. But I just don't want to jump up and leave my parish with resolutions that don't affect me ATM. Neither does the women pastors.

The other thing is that the LCMS church in the area is very cold, unfriendly, and only does communion once a month. Plus their last pastor (he is just resigning) taught that the unbaptized where taken over by deamons and had a tendency to complain that he wasn't being paid enough.

It was a bad resolution but I like to correct because it doesn't condone the same sex relationships. . . its just a really really big step towards doing so.

I also belive that if we condone same sex relationships the church will split and my church will be on the side that doesn't condone those relationships. So I feel fairly safe with it. But if I move, I may have to go to a different church.

I'm stuck picking the lesser of churchs I don't completly doctrinally agree with.

[PreachersWife2004]

I can see what you're saying Luther, but if the WELS ever passed a memorial like that, I'd be out, lickety split, even though it wouldn't affect my church. I wouldn't want to have any association with the synod if they pulled something like that.

Heck, it's bad enough that I will have to explain to my non-Lutheran friends that it was ELCA and not ALL the Lutherans in the world who made that statement...and I will have to explain it because the media will pick it up and run with it: "Lutherans voted to allow gays in a committed relationship to be pastors" or some such nonsense.

[JimfromOhio]

Okay.. let's talk about "association" as "wouldn't want to have any association". Specifically, what doctrines will a Church will have to be in order for us to be part of the association? Christians are looking for any denominations or non-denominational churches who teaches the way they believed as the Bible says.

[Luther073082]

I can see what you're saying Luther, but if the WELS ever passed a memorial like that, I'd be out, lickety split, even though it wouldn't affect my church. I wouldn't want to have any association with the synod if they pulled something like that.

Heck, it's bad enough that I will have to explain to my non-Lutheran friends that it was ELCA and not ALL the Lutherans in the world who made that statement...and I will have to explain it because the media will pick it up and run with it: "Lutherans voted to allow gays in a committed relationship to be pastors" or some such nonsense.

Yeah I hate that too, but a lot of the problem is the media they are going to promote it to make it look like all Lutherans love gays.

When really the truth is that the ELCA passed a non-binding resolution to appease some people and the other Lutheran congregations detest that.

Personally I just want the ELCA to split and get it overwith. I wasn't here to see the ALC or the other one (LCA???) but I belive the ALC was the more conservative of the two but not as conservative as the LCMS. Not sure how they would do the doctrine now, but it sounds like it might be a good fit for me.

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay.. let's talk about "association" as "wouldn't want to have any association". Specifically, what doctrines will a Church will have to be in order for us to be part of the association? Christians are looking for any denominations or non-denominational churches who teaches the way they believed as the Bible says.

I think your last statement pretty much sums it up. The WELS is in fellowship with churches that profess and believe the same way the WELS does. And that is agreement in all things, not just one or two. Unfortunately, just saying "I believe in Jesus Christ" doesn't do it anymore, because one might believe in Jesus Christ, but may not agree that his sacrifice on the cross was enough to save us and that we must do something for our salvation. We can't have unity with a church like that, because that is not what the bible says.

In terms of the ELCA, I've wanted no association with the synod for quite some time, especially after I found a letter from the synod to my grandma, who apparently at one point in time actually felt guilty about the four or so abortions she had over the years. The letter from the synod officials stated that she need not feel guilty because all things work to the glory of God and it must've been God's will that she had those abortions. That letter was the sole reason my grandma fought a bitter fight about abortion...if the CHURCH says it was okay, then it was okay in her mind, which is totally against the bible. Me being adopted, and me having given up a child for adoption (I know I just felt the whole lot of you hit the floor in a dead faint) AND most importantly me being a Christian, it broke my heart to read this letter from synod officials, and I have no idea what their motivation was, other than to make my grandma feel better.

[Luther073082]

In terms of the ELCA, I've wanted no association with the synod for quite some time, especially after I found a letter from the synod to my grandma, who apparently at one point in time actually felt guilty about the four or so abortions she had over the years. The letter from the synod officials stated that she need not feel guilty because all things work to the glory of God and it must've been God's will that she had those abortions. That letter was the sole reason my grandma fought a bitter fight about abortion...if the CHURCH says it was okay, then it was okay in her mind, which is totally against the bible. Me being adopted, and me having given up a child for adoption (I know I just felt the whole lot of you hit the floor in a dead faint) AND most importantly me being a Christian, it broke my heart to read this letter from synod officials, and I have no idea what their motivation was, other than to make my grandma feel better.


Thats sad. . . It wasn't God's will as much as God knew it would happen.

I'm glad you gave up the child for adoption instead of having an abortion. This has been a conflict with my immediate family for me. My mom recently took my brother's GF to the death merchants at planned parenthood so she could get some birth control pills so her and my brother could start fornicating.

The joys of having a family that is agnostic. Then again I guess its not as bad as other members of my family who are "catholic" but just don't care about the rules.

I can't say that I've spent every moment of my Christian life focusing on God's will and what God would have me do. But I don't want to make a long term or lifetime habit out of ignoring God on everyday but Sunday like a lot of people do. And I'm definatly not going to condone my sins.

Oh well saved by grace alone through faith alone.

[LutheranChick]

I think your last statement pretty much sums it up. The WELS is in fellowship with churches that profess and believe the same way the WELS does. And that is agreement in all things, not just one or two. Unfortunately, just saying "I believe in Jesus Christ" doesn't do it anymore, because one might believe in Jesus Christ, but may not agree that his sacrifice on the cross was enough to save us and that we must do something for our salvation. We can't have unity with a church like that, because that is not what the bible says.

In terms of the ELCA, I've wanted no association with the synod for quite some time, especially after I found a letter from the synod to my grandma, who apparently at one point in time actually felt guilty about the four or so abortions she had over the years. The letter from the synod officials stated that she need not feel guilty because all things work to the glory of God and it must've been God's will that she had those abortions. That letter was the sole reason my grandma fought a bitter fight about abortion...if the CHURCH says it was okay, then it was okay in her mind, which is totally against the bible. Me being adopted, and me having given up a child for adoption (I know I just felt the whole lot of you hit the floor in a dead faint) AND most importantly me being a Christian, it broke my heart to read this letter from synod officials, and I have no idea what their motivation was, other than to make my grandma feel better.
How very, very sad - about the ELCA's response to your grandmother. Wow - but I guess it shouldn't be surprising. There is something I would like to point out about WELS, ELS and the other synods that are in fellowship with them. No matter what church you go to in these synods, you can be assured of hearing EXACTLY the same messages, same doctrine, same beliefs. I can rest assured that if my children go to different parts of the country, I can tell them to go to an ELS or WELS church and be confident that they will hear the same truths of the bible. I don't have to investigate to find out if this or that particular church is more 'liberal' leaning. All the churches agree on doctrine- 100%.

I wish that the more 'conservative' churches in the ELCA would get out and form their own synod. Why would you want to stay in an organization that you don't agree with? I guess that's something I don't understand about LCMS as well - and I absolutely do not mean any offense to any of our LCMS friends here - so please do not take this wrong - but is it not also true that there are some more 'liberal' LCMS churches? If I am wrong, please correct me.

[DaRev]

I guess that's something I don't understand about LCMS as well - and I absolutely do not mean any offense to any of our LCMS friends here - so please do not take this wrong - but is it not also true that there are some more 'liberal' LCMS churches? If I am wrong, please correct me.

This is unfortunately true. And it stems from the synod's inability or unwillingness to maintain proper doctrine and practice among it's member congregations and commissioned ministers.

[LilLamb219]

For the ELCA congregations that want to leave...don't they lose their building/land, etc...? Is the ELCA the synod that keeps those things?

[DaRev]

My understanding is that there is a very involved process to go through for a congregation to leave the ELCA, including two 2/3 majority votes of the congregation and a plea by the synodical bishop.

As to the property and assets, it depends on which church body the congregation held membership in prior to the merger. I believe the old ALC churches can retain their property. I don't know about the AELC congregations. But my understanding is that the old LCA churches and any new congregations formed since 1987 must give up their assets to the synod in which they are located.

[JimfromOhio]

I think your last statement pretty much sums it up. The WELS is in fellowship with churches that profess and believe the same way the WELS does. And that is agreement in all things, not just one or two. Unfortunately, just saying "I believe in Jesus Christ" doesn't do it anymore, because one might believe in Jesus Christ, but may not agree that his sacrifice on the cross was enough to save us and that we must do something for our salvation. We can't have unity with a church like that, because that is not what the bible says.

In terms of the ELCA, I've wanted no association with the synod for quite some time, especially after I found a letter from the synod to my grandma, who apparently at one point in time actually felt guilty about the four or so abortions she had over the years. The letter from the synod officials stated that she need not feel guilty because all things work to the glory of God and it must've been God's will that she had those abortions. That letter was the sole reason my grandma fought a bitter fight about abortion...if the CHURCH says it was okay, then it was okay in her mind, which is totally against the bible. Me being adopted, and me having given up a child for adoption (I know I just felt the whole lot of you hit the floor in a dead faint) AND most importantly me being a Christian, it broke my heart to read this letter from synod officials, and I have no idea what their motivation was, other than to make my grandma feel better.

Your example of your grandmother's situaion is a blessing. That's pretty much what I have been facing over the years. While I am against abortion, homosexuality and other issues simply because the scriptures say so. I have learned to understand God's love for sinners. Sometimes, according to the Scriptures, we must move away from bad teachings which means we are to seperate from those teachings we disagree with. Regardless of the teachings (doctrines), we all are Christians first according to Jesus Christ's teachings (not the Church's teachings). We all have to remember that God is ruling all things to work together for our good and His purpose. Romans 8:28-29 "And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them." God's providence is always that we shouldn't be surprised to find this a mysterious paradox of what happens around the world for His purpose.

In Ephesians 1:11, "He works all things according to the purpose of His own will." God's divine intervention (i.e. trials) goes many ways in this world. All circumstances can turn people to God. Mistakes are simply life as “We know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, proven character; and . . .” (Rom. 5:3-4). “Knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect (mature) and complete, lacking in nothing” (Jam. 1:3-4). The bad events are circumscribed by a loving providence and God promises to use them all for His ultimate good for HIS GLORY. There is a verse in the Bible that God promises that there won’t be anything so bad happen to me that I am not able to bear it. God does everything--He governs everything. Faith is accepting God's Will.

We should be able respond in faith to life's problems through God's powerful grace. Christians will still sin but how we respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit when we sin. Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we choose to respond to our lives' situation through God's grace. With that thought in mind, we should always keep filling the Holy Spirit so that we are able to act and react any given situations. "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor. 12:9).

Many great faiths in the scriptures made mistakes and we should learn from them how they responded to God's disciplines.

[JimfromOhio]

This is unfortunately true. And it stems from the synod's inability or unwillingness to maintain proper doctrine and practice among it's member congregations and commissioned ministers.

Yes.. in the opposite point of view, this is an example of a liberal denomination trying to control "conservative" local churches.

[DaRev]

Yes.. in the opposite point of view, this is an example of a liberal denomination trying to control "conservative" local churches.

In the ELCA that's true. In the LCMS it has to do with lack of control.

[DaSeminarian]

In the ELCA that's true. In the LCMS it has to do with lack of control.

Actually I would not say control was the best word. I think it is actually a lack of respect for the doctrine and practices the Synod has established. Would you really want the Synod to come into your church and "Control" you and the congregation as to what you can and can't do?

Many of these rogue congregations are being led by colloquyed seminex men who think that staying the course with the Confessions is restricting and is not "mission minded".

I don't want a Synod office telling me how to do things, but would rather be self-policing on issues regarding doctrine and practice.

The ELCA dictates to churches moreso than the LCMS.

[DaRev]

No, the synod does not need to dictate to congregations. Congregations are free to do as they wish. But there is a set standard for membership in the synod. If a congregation wishes to operate outside of that standard, then they should not be permitted to remain members of the synod.

Congregations are synod members voluntarily. But to be and remain members they have to agree to follow the standard teaching and practice. When a congregation goes outside of that standard, then their membership in the synod should be seriously questioned and not simply shrugged off as it appears to be the case now.

[Confess]

No, the synod does not need to dictate to congregations. Congregations are free to do as they wish. But there is a set standard for membership in the synod. If a congregation wishes to operate outside of that standard, then they should not be permitted to remain members of the synod.

Congregations are synod members voluntarily. But to be and remain members they have to agree to follow the standard teaching and practice. When a congregation goes outside of that standard, then their membership in the synod should be seriously questioned and not simply shrugged off as it appears to be the case now.
That sounds like a fine line between dictation and freedom.

[PreachersWife2004]

That sounds like a fine line between dictation and freedom.

I liken it to my freelancing. I have a boss, and I am free to listen to what they want and provide it to them, however, I risk terminating my freelancing relationship with them should I choose to do it MY way rather than there way.

A synod and her churches are much like the same thing, except what's at stake is much larger than a paycheck.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Speaking of last straws... I think I'm done with CF. Ie, not CF. Forums. I'll let ya'll know what I'm doing soon.

[DaSeminarian]

No, the synod does not need to dictate to congregations. Congregations are free to do as they wish. But there is a set standard for membership in the synod. If a congregation wishes to operate outside of that standard, then they should not be permitted to remain members of the synod.

Congregations are synod members voluntarily. But to be and remain members they have to agree to follow the standard teaching and practice. When a congregation goes outside of that standard, then their membership in the synod should be seriously questioned and not simply shrugged off as it appears to be the case now.


But who is going to do the policing on these membership requirements?

[PreachersWife2004]

But who is going to do the policing on these membership requirements?

In my opinion, that's where laypeople come in.

The laypeople have the responsibility to also make sure their church is following sound synod doctrine. If they aren't, then the laypeople need to talk to the pastors first, then to the district level and then to the synod level if the issues are not resolved. It's church discipline involving the church.