ELCA Task Force on Sexuality

[NordicLutheran]

I was just wondering what will happen to the ELCA after the Task force on sexuality has released their findings in '09? There can be two conclusions. The first that gay pastors can be allowed to be in a relationship, or that they cannot. What will be the effects on the ELCA if the first conclusion is made?

[BabyLutheran]

Scary thought.

I am wondering if there is such a thing as a moderate synod in the Lutheran church. It sounds way left or way right, take it or leave it.

[NordicLutheran]

I don't think it's fair to include politics into religion. Not even the gates of hell will prevail against the Church. If hell can't prevail against the Church what makes one think that modernity can. lol

[BabyLutheran]

I don't think it's fair to include politics into religion. Not even the gates of hell will prevail against the Church. If hell can't prevail against the Church what makes one think that modernity can. lol
I meant theologically, not politically!

[Lupinus]

well thats because it is extremes. It's sinful, or it is not. The word is true, or it is not. So on and so fourth, it's not really a middle of the road thing

[BabyLutheran]

I was speaking in generalities, not just about this issue. It's one I side with the LCMS people on. But on communion, women pastors, and such , I side with ELCA. Maybe I am not speaking English today, I don't know. Or maybe I am the only one on the planet who is confused.

It's like there is a checklist of beliefs on each side that I agree with somewhat, but neither totally.

That's the quandary. There is no middle ground. You have to pick which ones are most important to you, and go that way, I guess.

[Studeclunker]

Nordic, it isn't a case of politics, though that is what the issue has become. The issue is a question of right and wrong. When it comes to homosexuality, or sexuality in general, there is only one answer available to a Christian.

Upon what is a Christian's faith based upon? One would hope that it is the Word of God. I.E: the Holy Bible. Where the leadership of the ELCA strays is their viewpoint on the veracity of that Word. This is sad as the Bible is the only authority we have. It is the oracle of the living God. If one picks and chooses what they want to follow in that book, it invalidates what isn't chosen. That action invalidates the entire belief system, by proxy.

This same issue came up fifteen years or so ago within the ELCA. The resulting document was called; The Statement On Human Sexuality. This foul heresy was denounced by a landslide, when presented to the laity in the ELCA for adoption. The problem lies in the minority within the denomination who wish to push this agenda forward. They are the ones playing politics.

This is the reason I left the ELCA for the LCMS many years ago. These people will continue to press their agenda till they either succeed or are ejected from the organization. It seems that the ordaining of women and gays has been accepted by the laity and the next step is to further push the liberal agenda of acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle as normal.

After all, if the leader of a congregation can live in Biblical sin, what kind of example do they set?

Sadly, the LCMS seems to be steering their corporate ship to the same course.

Jerrymandering with Biblical scripture won't change the fact that the ELCA shouldn't even be considering this issue. The fact remains that the hierarchy of the ELCA have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused by any facts.

The previous, ladies and gentlemen, is my heartbroken opinion. Take it or leave it.:sigh:

[gtmyers]

Nordic, it isn't a case of politics, though that is what the issue has become. The issue is a question of right and wrong. When it comes to homosexuality, or sexuality in general, there is only one answer available to a Christian.

Upon what is a Christian's faith based upon? One would hope that it is the Word of God. I.E: the Holy Bible. Where the leadership of the ELCA strays is their viewpoint on the veracity of that Word. This is sad as the Bible is the only authority we have. It is the oracle of the living God. If one picks and chooses what they want to follow in that book, it invalidates what isn't chosen. That action invalidates the entire belief system, by proxy.

This same issue came up fifteen years or so ago within the ELCA. The resulting document was called; The Statement On Human Sexuality. This foul heresy was denounced by a landslide, when presented to the laity in the ELCA for adoption. The problem lies in the minority within the denomination who wish to push this agenda forward. They are the ones playing politics.

This is the reason I left the ELCA for the LCMS many years ago. These people will continue to press their agenda till they either succeed or are ejected from the organization. It seems that the ordaining of women and gays has been accepted by the laity and the next step is to further push the liberal agenda of acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle as normal.

After all, if the leader of a congregation can live in Biblical sin, what kind of example do they set?

Sadly, the LCMS seems to be steering their corporate ship to the same course.

Jerrymandering with Biblical scripture won't change the fact that the ELCA shouldn't even be considering this issue. The fact remains that the hierarchy of the ELCA have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused by any facts.

The previous, ladies and gentlemen, is my heartbroken opinion. Take it or leave it.:sigh:
I find that there are more conservative ELCA churches here in NC than maybe other places. I do know that my wifes family is all ELCA and they believe the bible is the Word of God and they feel homosexuality is a sin. They think its wrong for pastors that are gay to remain in that place of service. There are groups with in the ELCA that side with what scripture says about the issue, one such group is Word Alone. They have a website that explains what they support and all. Local congregations are joining this group to show support. I feel that if the ELCA ever allows practising gays to be pastors then there may be a split. Thats my 2 cents worth.

Blessings to you all!

[maylor]

If the ELCA currently allows "non-practicing homosexuals" ( whatever that means, If I'd never had sex with a woman would I be a non-practicing heterosexual?) as pastors, and traditional ELCA congregations have remained in the synod, I don't see how allowing practicing homosexuals to be pastors is going to cause a split.

[gitarreliebhaber]

If the ELCA currently allows "non-practicing homosexuals" ( whatever that means, If I'd never had sex with a woman would I be a non-practicing heterosexual?) as pastors, and traditional ELCA congregations have remained in the synod, I don't see how allowing practicing homosexuals to be pastors is going to cause a split.
Well there's the whole issue of whether or not you can change your sexuality. Take the Roman Catholic view, for example. The Catholic Church believes (if I understand it right) that you are as God made you, i.e., if you're gay, you're gay, and there's no "converting" your sexuality. However, they also don't believe that it's right to act on this sexuality. Basically then, if you're gay then you are destined to be celibate. That is also the current ELCA view. There have been numerous studies (although I guess with any study you can say that it's biased) showing that "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" for homosexuality flat-out does not work. You can say that the person doesn't have enough faith or whatever, but if you're shown time and time again that gays cannot just pray and will themselves to become straight, you do have to consider the alternative--that perhaps you can't change your orientation. I'm sure many people in the ELCA accept this. So if someone is born with a "predisposition" to be attracted to someone of the same sex, he/she should not be barred from ordination, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.

In other words, it's not a sin to be attracted to members of your same sex--you just are or you aren't. Sin comes into play when you have a choice. If you choose to act on this attraction, that's when you sin.

That's why a decision to allow gay clergy in openly gay relationships would cause a split. It's allowing someone to live in an unrepentant state of sin (if that's your view of gay relationships).

[RadMan]

New York Times

In 1994, when the Rev. Katrina D. Foster became pastor of Fordham Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx, she threw herself into ministering to her small, mostly Caribbean-born congregation. She not only preached to them on Sundays but lived in the neighborhood and showed up to support them in everything from surgeries to legal matters.

But Pastor Foster was keeping a secret from her congregation. She held onto it even after a woman came to live with her in the parsonage, then joined the church choir.

“Some people would say, ‘It’s so nice you have someone to live with you in that 11-room house,’ ” said Pastor Foster, 39.

But in 2002, when the woman, Pamela Kallimanis, became pregnant, they knew the time had come. So Pastor Foster sat her congregants down one by one and told them that she and Ms. Kallimanis were partners and were expecting a child.

Not one person openly criticized her, she said. Instead, “they threw us the most wonderfully outrageous baby shower in the side yard next to the church,” she said. “The woman I was most anxious about telling” — the church president — “I thought she was going to leap across the table and hug me.”

The response, however, was not all positive. A small number of families trickled away. Pastor Foster said only one member told her outright why she had stopped coming. “I got her on the phone one day and she said she couldn’t sit under a pastor who was a homosexual,” she said.

Now Pastor Foster and her roughly 100 congregants face a new challenge: the possibility that she, along with four other pastors in the New York area and 81 nationwide, could be defrocked in 2009 by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The country’s largest Lutheran denomination, it allows openly gay pastors but forbids them from being in same-sex relationships, according to the Rev. Stephen P. Bouman, bishop of the denomination’s New York-area synod.

In August, Pastor Foster was among the clerics who disclosed that they were in such relationships at the church’s biennial national assembly in Chicago, where church policy was decided. The assembly voted to urge synod leaders not to discipline those pastors until the issue of pastors in same-sex relationships could be voted on at the next meeting, in 2009.

Bishop Bouman said he would not have disciplined Pastor Foster anyway. “She is someone whose faith is genuine and she lives it in a very bold and inclusive way,” he said. “She’s not afraid to tell people that she loves God and that God loves them.” When Bishop Bouman leaves to take a national church position in Chicago in March, however, whoever succeeds him in New York may aim to defrock Pastor Foster before the 2009 assembly.

Another pastor in the synod, the Rev. Paul Hagen, of St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in the Bronx, isn’t supportive. He said that the “the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rev. Stephen P. Bouman, bishop of the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), was elected Nov. 11 by the ELCA Church Council to a four-year appointment as executive director of ELCA Evangelical Outreach and Congregational Mission (EOCM) beginning Jan. 1, 2008.
The Church Council is the ELCA's board of directors and serves as the legislative authority of the church between churchwide assemblies.

[DaRev]

Well there's the whole issue of whether or not you can change your sexuality. Take the Roman Catholic view, for example. The Catholic Church believes (if I understand it right) that you are as God made you, i.e., if you're gay, you're gay, and there's no "converting" your sexuality. However, they also don't believe that it's right to act on this sexuality. Basically then, if you're gay then you are destined to be celibate. That is also the current ELCA view. There have been numerous studies (although I guess with any study you can say that it's biased) showing that "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" for homosexuality flat-out does not work. You can say that the person doesn't have enough faith or whatever, but if you're shown time and time again that gays cannot just pray and will themselves to become straight, you do have to consider the alternative--that perhaps you can't change your orientation. I'm sure many people in the ELCA accept this. So if someone is born with a "predisposition" to be attracted to someone of the same sex, he/she should not be barred from ordination, as long as he/she doesn't act on it.

In other words, it's not a sin to be attracted to members of your same sex--you just are or you aren't. Sin comes into play when you have a choice. If you choose to act on this attraction, that's when you sin.

That's why a decision to allow gay clergy in openly gay relationships would cause a split. It's allowing someone to live in an unrepentant state of sin (if that's your view of gay relationships).

You mentioned studies that seem to show correcting the homosexual affliction do not work. I believe there have been studies that have shown it can. There are a number of people who have been able to turn from homosexuality successfully.
You also said "attraction is not a sin." I beg to differ. Sin originates in the heart, as does attraction. God created man and woman to be attracted to each other. Anything outside of God's ordained will is by nature sin.

[DaRev]

Another pastor in the synod, the Rev. Paul Hagen, of St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in the Bronx, isn’t supportive. He said that the “the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as a sin.

It's good to see that at least one of them can read.

[BabyLutheran]

We should rename this the LCMS forum! Man I wish everyone were as perfect as you people. Even someone from the dark side who is agrees with you gets made fun of...

[NordicLutheran]

We should rename this the LCMS forum! Man I wish everyone were as perfect as you people. Even someone from the dark side who is agrees with you gets made fun of...
You won't find lukewarmness on the TCL or in the LCMS/WELS forums. They don't call us confessional Lutherans for nothing.

[BabyLutheran]

You won't find lukewarmness on the TCL or in the LCMS/WELS forums. They don't call us confessional Lutherans for nothing.
I think I realize that now! lol

You can be on fire without being overly pious though

[maylor]

We should rename this the LCMS forum! Man I wish everyone were as perfect as you people. Even someone from the dark side who is agrees with you gets made fun of...


I am by NO MEANS perfect. I've struggled with sexual sin most of my life. I'm grateful to attend a church that doesn't make excuses for my sin, like, "you were born that way".

[BabyLutheran]

Wasn't referring to the sin, was referring to someone in the ELCA being made fun of who actually agreed that it was a sin.

Myself, I sin continuously!

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Myself, I sin continuously!

One of many things we both share!;)

Mark

[RadMan]

I am by NO MEANS perfect. I've struggled with sexual sin most of my life. I'm grateful to attend a church that doesn't make excuses for my sin, like, "you were born that way".Ooh-------good one! :thumbsup:;)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some thoughts....


I think MOST faith communities are experiencing a re-aliegnment, not along cultural/historic/european lines but conservative/liberal. I have a friend who WAS "Episcopal" and now defines herself as "Anglican" as her congregation left the Episcopal Church in the USA and has joined an utlra conservative province in Africa. Seems to be a movement in America...


I applaud the ELCA for tackeling some TOUGH and controversial issues. I think the LCMS days are just ahead for dealing with these same issues. I'm not saying I AGREE with the conclusions the ELCA is coming to - but I applaud them for addressing them head on.


To ME (maybe cuz I'm the son, grandson and nephew of pastors), CLERGY are on a different level. Maybe they feel they should not be but they are. I confess it's terribly inconsistent of me (I CONFESSED IT, lol), but a lay person who has a "live in" of the same gender is someone I'd put in the same category with SEVERAL in my parish who are not legally married but I strongly suspect they are living together (hey, they have the same address!). But I would not tolerate a pastor "living" with the church organist - be such male OR female! I KNOW the pastor is a sinner (hey, I'm a PK) but he is 'watched' and is to not discredit the Gospel that he/she preaches.

I personally have no HUGE problem with a pastor who have an "orientation" toward the same gender AND ABSTAINS (after all, I have an ordination toward the other gender but I ABSTAIN because I'm not married). But the pastor who LIVES in it, unrepentent - whether he's "straight" and living with his s/o OR gay and living with his s/o is mostly (mostly) moot. I dont' support either.

Yeah, I know I'm holding pastors to a higher level that the bloat next to me. I think God does, too.



Just my $0.00


Pax


- Josiah





.

[MagnusEmboden]

Sin is sin...it is not a matter of eventualities but of our nature.

We sin because we are sinners, therefore it doesn't matter if we were born gay or straight, an alcoholic or not, a person who struggles with pornography or one who struggles with an addiction to gambling.

Plenty of studies indicate that each of these "besetting evils" are in some sense genetic. Many, maybe most, of those who live with these do so because they were "born that way".

But again, they were "born that way" because, like all of us, they were born dead in trespasses and sins and these are just a few of the ways that this can manifest itself.

We do not excuse the manifestation anymore than its cause.

We don't say of drug addicts or serial adulterers that they were just born that way and should be permitted to overdose or ruin marriages as they see fit or that doing so is somehow a privilege of Christian freedom.

[Melethiel]

It's good to see that at least one of them can read.
You just can't avoid the chance to take a potshot, can you?

[DaRev]

You just can't avoid the chance to take a potshot, can you?

Well, I mean, the Bible is quite clear. I don't understand why they need to do a study for all these years.

[RadMan]

:)

[RadMan]

Sin is sin...it is not a matter of eventualities but of our nature.

We sin because we are sinners, therefore it doesn't matter if we were born gay or straight, an alcoholic or not, a person who struggles with pornography or one who struggles with an addiction to gambling.

Plenty of studies indicate that each of these "besetting evils" are in some sense genetic. Many, maybe most, of those who live with these do so because they were "born that way".

But again, they were "born that way" because, like all of us, they were born dead in trespasses and sins and these are just a few of the ways that this can manifest itself.

We do not excuse the manifestation anymore than its cause.

We don't say of drug addicts or serial adulterers that they were just born that way and should be permitted to overdose or ruin marriages as they see fit or that doing so is somehow a privilege of Christian freedom.That's why I like the EO's and RCC's take on mortal and venial sin. There's even a Lutheran minister from Australia that advocates that there is these two distinctions. Adam G. Cooper is a pastor in the Lutheran Church of Australia and has been writing about the loss of Lutheran ministers to RCC or EO. Wonder if he's gone that way to? He pulls some strong arguments from Luther's Works, Walther, Chemitz and BOC on mortal and venial.


http://www.clai.org.au/articles/mortal~1.htm (http://www.clai.org.au/articles/mortal%7E1.htm)

[BabyLutheran]

Well, I mean, the Bible is quite clear. I don't understand why they need to do a study for all these years.
What's a Bible?

lol

[synger]

What's a Bible?

lol
*laughs* Reminds me of a few Sundays ago when we had someone from the SE district in to do a Bible Study and discussion about stewardship, investments, and LCEF. Pastor warned him that since we were Lutherans, we didn't bring Bibles to church. About five of us proceeded to unzip our Bibles and get ready... He laughed and said, "Well, they're all converts. Maybe they'll rub off on the rest of them."

[BabyLutheran]

Well at our last church, everyone brought their Bibles, but after the pastor read the one verse that he based his self help lecture on, we never opened them again.

At least we hear the word 3 times every Sunday now, even if we don't have our Bibles with us.

[LutheranChick]

Yeah, I know I'm holding pastors to a higher level that the bloat next to me. I think God does, too.

.

I agree with that statement. A pastor is the spiritual leader of the congregation and should be above reproach. Yes, pastors sin just like everyone else, but a pastor who is living in unrepentant sin is not fit for the office. It does not matter WHAT the sin is.

[LutheranMafia]

You mentioned studies that seem to show correcting the homosexual affliction do not work. I believe there have been studies that have shown it can. There are a number of people who have been able to turn from homosexuality successfully.
It depends on whether you are talking about lesbians, bisexual men or gay men. Your chances of success, and the strategies most likely to succeed varies dramatically depending on which group you are talking about.

Lesbians almost universally report that they became lesbian later in life as a result of life experiences and that it was a choice they made. Generally they suffered from abuse or neglect from their father (Dick Cheney probably just spent too much time at work) which was later exacerbated by a boyfriend or husband that they are bitter about. Women in general have far more sexual plasticity than men, so getting them to swing one way or the other is a much easier task. There is no known hormonal distinction or difference in brain anatomy that differentiates lesbians from heterosexual women, and it is arguable that all women potentially have latent lesbian tendencies. If two teenage girls start spending too much time alone together, you have to start worrying, but if two teenage boys do the same you might worry that they are getting into mischief, but there is seldom a concern that any hanky panky might be going on. So getting women to shift modes is not such an amazing accomplishment.

The single largest factor in male bisexuality is childhood sexual abuse. Their unnatural degree of male sexual plasticity is the result of intense trauma which might be treatable by a very large amount of therapy. Although much more difficult, there is still a significant chance of success.

Gay men are statistically significantly more intelligent than heterosexual men, just one of a number of differences in hormone levels and brain anatomy. It is abundantly clear that God did make them different, and they almost universally report that from the earliest sexual awareness they had as a young child they knew they were gay. Men simply do not have sexual plasticity, and the odds of converting a man who has not suffered from childhood sexual abuse, is almost zero, regardless of which direction you are talking about trying to convert them too.

You also said "attraction is not a sin." I beg to differ. Sin originates in the heart, as does attraction. God created man and woman to be attracted to each other. Anything outside of God's ordained will is by nature sin.
Did God ordain cars and electric power? If God only intended for males and females to be attracted then why does homosexuality exist in nature as well as in humans? Your God, unlike my God, seems to make some huge blunders.

Yours is a contrived definition of sin which is extremely fuzzy and easy to twist for polemic purposes. Sin is causing unnecessary harm to others or doing something that degrades your own character. Christians too seldom use the word character in conjunction with sin when there is a precise mathematical relationship. They are multiplicatively inverse. Sin = 1/character and character = 1/sin. Definitions of sin that dispense with any reference to character or any similar concept, are extremely lacking in my opinion.

The problem is that in Greek and Roman days homosexual child abuse was rampant, and also often intimately tied into demonic cult worship, which virtually all western religions were back then and why none of them survived to today. Similarly, in the Middle East a thousand years earlier the Jews were surrounded by even more primitive and demonic sex cults. Sodom and Gomorra didn’t just engage in sodomy, but rather homosexuality was just a small but deeply enmeshed part of a vast array of perversities.

Unless you can show how homosexuality in all cases either harms someone else or degrades that person’s character, then all you have for an argument is guilt by association. Homosexuality CAN contribute to other problems, much as there are certain types of behavior patterns associated with physical or emotional child abuse that get passed on from generation too generation. If your culture is fragile enough then it is too great a liability to tolerate, but the principle problem even then is human barbarism, not homosexuality.

Your only argument here is “because the Bible says so” based on a flawed one-size-fits-all reading of scriptures. If there were moral validity to your argument you could reassert your thoughts in terms of axiomatic moral first principles. If your interpretation of the Bible is not rooted in your own moral understanding that you can express in your own terms, then all you are doing is parroting scriptures not comprehending them.

[BabyLutheran]

Can't wait to see what comes next.....

http://re3.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m3/2622552286

[DaRev]

If God only intended for males and females to be attracted then why does homosexuality exist in nature as well as in humans? Your God, unlike my God, seems to make some huge blunders.

Interesting post I must say. I don't agree with much of it, but it's interesting none the less.

As to your comment quoted above, human beings were created unique in nature, and God has indeed ordained certain things for humans alone. One of them is natural attraction between man and woman. Homosexual attraction is a result of the fall. It is not what God has ordained for human beings.

[RadMan]

It seems so odd that what you say LM and what the Bible says are so different. Think I'll stay with what the Bible says than what scientist dream up. After all they are the ones that came up with evolution to.

[LutheranMafia]

So if this issue is so clear cut and your interpretation is the only reasonable one that any sane person can come to, then why is there a gay Lutheran minister? Why are we having this discussion in the first place? Clearly there is difference of opinion among the Lutheran clergy on this matter.

But your mode of thinking will not tolerate this. Anyone who does not think as you do is clearly disagreeing with the Bible and not you. Such a humble evaluation of your own apparently flawless Biblical understanding. Thus, you must conclude that any Lutheran minister who disagrees is also disagreeing with the Bible, and not just you.

Sometimes things aren't as simple as people who don't really even care to think about a subject, would like to ram that subject into. Perhaps if there was even one gay person in this world that you really gave a damn about you might have a more thoughtful and humanly considerate opinion, something that Lutherans are generally well known for.

[Edial]

to LutheranMafia ...
It depends on whether you are talking about lesbians, bisexual men or gay men. Your chances of success, and the strategies most likely to succeed varies dramatically depending on which group you are talking about.

Lesbians almost universally report that they became lesbian later in life as a result of life experiences and that it was a choice they made. Generally they suffered from abuse or neglect from their father (Dick Cheney probably just spent too much time at work) which was later exacerbated by a boyfriend or husband that they are bitter about. Women in general have far more sexual plasticity than men, so getting them to swing one way or the other is a much easier task. There is no known hormonal distinction or difference in brain anatomy that differentiates lesbians from heterosexual women, and it is arguable that all women potentially have latent lesbian tendencies. If two teenage girls start spending too much time alone together, you have to start worrying, but if two teenage boys do the same you might worry that they are getting into mischief, but there is seldom a concern that any hanky panky might be going on. So getting women to shift modes is not such an amazing accomplishment.

The single largest factor in male bisexuality is childhood sexual abuse. Their unnatural degree of male sexual plasticity is the result of intense trauma which might be treatable by a very large amount of therapy. Although much more difficult, there is still a significant chance of success.

Gay men are statistically significantly more intelligent than heterosexual men, just one of a number of differences in hormone levels and brain anatomy. It is abundantly clear that God did make them different, and they almost universally report that from the earliest sexual awareness they had as a young child they knew they were gay. Men simply do not have sexual plasticity, and the odds of converting a man who has not suffered from childhood sexual abuse, is almost zero, regardless of which direction you are talking about trying to convert them too.

Wow. What a great post. Below bolded is what I do not agree with.

Did God ordain cars and electric power? If God only intended for males and females to be attracted then why does homosexuality exist in nature as well as in humans? Your God, unlike my God, seems to make some huge blunders.

Yours is a contrived definition of sin which is extremely fuzzy and easy to twist for polemic purposes. Sin is causing unnecessary harm to others or doing something that degrades your own character. Christians too seldom use the word character in conjunction with sin when there is a precise mathematical relationship. They are multiplicatively inverse. Sin = 1/character and character = 1/sin. Definitions of sin that dispense with any reference to character or any similar concept, are extremely lacking in my opinion.

The problem is that in Greek and Roman days homosexual child abuse was rampant, and also often intimately tied into demonic cult worship, which virtually all western religions were back then and why none of them survived to today. Similarly, in the Middle East a thousand years earlier the Jews were surrounded by even more primitive and demonic sex cults. Sodom and Gomorra didn’t just engage in sodomy, but rather homosexuality was just a small but deeply enmeshed part of a vast array of perversities.

Unless you can show how homosexuality in all cases either harms someone else or degrades that person’s character, then all you have for an argument is guilt by association. Homosexuality CAN contribute to other problems, much as there are certain types of behavior patterns associated with physical or emotional child abuse that get passed on from generation too generation. If your culture is fragile enough then it is too great a liability to tolerate, but the principle problem even then is human barbarism, not homosexuality.

Your only argument here is “because the Bible says so” based on a flawed one-size-fits-all reading of scriptures. If there were moral validity to your argument you could reassert your thoughts in terms of axiomatic moral first principles. If your interpretation of the Bible is not rooted in your own moral understanding that you can express in your own terms, then all you are doing is parroting scriptures not comprehending them.

1. If God only intended for males and females to be attracted then why does homosexuality exist in nature as well as in humans?

The reason homosexual attraction exists is not because it is OK. There are also attractions to children and animals. It is not OK. Also, some have desires to murder and steal. It is not OK either.

Sin exists.

The Lord's Prayer does seem to address this problem.

MT 6:10 your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.

God's will is not being done "on earth as it is in heaven".
That's why Christ is coming.

2. Unless you can show how homosexuality in all cases either harms someone else or degrades that person’s character, then all you have for an argument is guilt by association.

Person's character has this "plasticity" (the term you used) that "sees" kind of shallow.
Many Mafia murderers are great family people and protect children as much as others.

Due to our plasticity, we can justify about anything and feel guiltless about it.

However, there is something bigger at stake here.
Willful and guiltless homosexual activities (together with other activities) stand as a huge barrier between a person and salvation.

Many homosexuals agree with the following verse except with "sexual" parts.

1CO 6:9-10 ... Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

If they agree that thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers are not fit for Heaven, don't you think it is a bit short-sighted to say that homosexuals will?

There probably also some people that are greedy and say that the Bible is not correct on this, yet is correct on the homosexual part.

What makes one say that a homosexual sin is not a sin, yet other things are?

Thanks,
Ed

[RadMan]

So if this issue is so clear cut and your interpretation is the only reasonable one that any sane person can come to, then why is there a gay Lutheran minister? Why are we having this discussion in the first place? Clearly there is difference of opinion among the Lutheran clergy on this matter.

But your mode of thinking will not tolerate this. Anyone who does not think as you do is clearly disagreeing with the Bible and not you. Such a humble evaluation of your own apparently flawless Biblical understanding. Thus, you must conclude that any Lutheran minister who disagrees is also disagreeing with the Bible, and not just you.

Sometimes things aren't as simple as people who don't really even care to think about a subject, would like to ram that subject into. Perhaps if there was even one gay person in this world that you really gave a damn about you might have a more thoughtful and humanly considerate opinion, something that Lutherans are generally well known for.Therein lies the problem of people that use their intellect to interpret what the Bible says. They make things too complicated and "iffy" with too many variables. It's just as easy to read the Bible for what it says than to come up with some alternate scenario that taxes the imagination.

Black and White. Not 25 stages of Gray.

[LutheranMafia]

Interesting post I must say. I don't agree with much of it, but it's interesting none the less.
Only people with humility are able to agree to disagree and do it in a civil manner that is not arrogant or condescending.

As to your comment quoted above, human beings were created unique in nature, and God has indeed ordained certain things for humans alone.
Homosexuality is not a sin in animals? :scratch: What is it then? I know your are implying that animals do not have salvation or eternal life and so they can't sin, but with such a rarified and oversimplified set of categories, that would appear to leave animal homosexuality as completely innocuous, which doesn't seem consistent with the rest of your argument.

One of them is natural attraction between man and woman. Homosexual attraction is a result of the fall. It is not what God has ordained for human beings.Since there is some debate as to whether there were any humans before the Fall, that is potentially an easy argument to make, even though the Bible says nothing about it. It isn't very convincing to me, since I don't pit the Bible and science into an unholy war against each other, as if science (i.e. the laws of the universe) were not every bit as much a product of God's direct hand as the Bible. I do not believe for a moment that God is not in control of the laws of the universe, which is what anti-evolution really is, it is really anti-intelligent design, not pro-intelligent design. So I don't find this argument to be Biblically or philosophically valid.

As I said, I think there are compelling reasons for the absolute prohibition against homosexuality in the Bible. However, I think that they have a cultural context, and there is nothing like the Roman empire today, much less Sodom and Gomorrah. Clearly the cultural context has changed. The Bible also prohibits all sorts of other things such as the wearing of polyester. Much of it Christians dismiss without the slightest flinch, and yet other issues which aren't even stressed, they cling to tenaciously. It is a product of person picking and choosing, people twisting the Bible to follow them, rather than genuinely accepting the Bible for what it really says.

[LutheranMafia]

Therein lies the problem of people that use their intellect to interpret what the Bible says. They make things too complicated and "iffy" with too many variables. It's just as easy to read the Bible for what it says than to come up with some alternate scenario that taxes the imagination.

Black and White. Not 25 stages of Gray.The heart is the issue. When you don't give a damn about someone it is easy to gloss over their situation and overgeneralize about someone.

THAT is what being intellectual truly is. An arrogant and presumptuous Ivory Tower mentality. Doctors are notoriously the most heartless and arrogant of all professions, mostly because they are callous and heartless, not because they are too intellectual.

In this respect I find many conservative Christians to be EXTREMELY intellectual and not heart centered at all. Intellectual atheists and conservative Christians often use profoundly similar polemic strategies, because deep down inside they are both heartless intellectual points of view that share a lot in common. (Not all conservative Christians nor all atheists, but a very large portion of both.)

[RadMan]

It is a product of person picking and choosing, people twisting the Bible to follow them, rather than genuinely accepting the Bible for what it really says.And that is exactly what you are doing. Taking sins our of context and fitting them into your own mold.

[LutheranMafia]

Wow. What a great post. Below bolded is what I do not agree with.
I've been slacking off too much today, and this post requires a lot of thought to answer. I have to get back too work, so I'll save the best for last and reply tomorrow.

[LutheranMafia]

--edit--

Too much for one day.

[RadMan]

The heart is the issue. When you don't give a damn about someone it is easy to gloss over their situation and overgeneralize about someone.

THAT is what being intellectual truly is. An arrogant and presumptuous Ivory Tower mentality. Doctors are notoriously the most heartless and arrogant of all professions, mostly because they are callous and heartless, not because they are too intellectual.

In this respect I find many conservative Christians to be EXTREMELY intellectual and not heart centered at all. Intellectual atheists and conservative Christians often use profoundly similar polemic strategies, because deep down inside they are both heartless intellectual points of view that share a lot in common. (Not all conservative Christians nor all atheists, but a very large portion of both.)Well see you just proven my point again. First of all you don't know me and what I do. I belong to a Christian motorcycle group and up until my cycle accident I was involved in talking/witnessing to the all the outlaw motorcycle groups at any given rally, including the gay and lesbian bikers. I rode with them. I talked with them and I ate with them. I spent time in the maximum security prisons talking to murderers, rapist, child molesters and killers, Aryans, Mexican Mafia, BGA VIce Lords, etc. That also included gays, lesbians and bi's.

Saying I live in an Ivory Tower is the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said to me. I tell them (bikers/prisoners) the same thing I would tell you. "Get right with God or die not tryin'. When you're sick and tired of being sick and tired then get the "crap" out of your head and get on your knees. Ask God to have pity on you to forgive your wayward soul and He will because you are being honest with Him and He truly loves you".

[Melethiel]

Sin is causing unnecessary harm to others or doing something that degrades your own character.
Where do you get this definition of sin?
Doctors are notoriously the most heartless and arrogant of all professions, mostly because they are callous and heartless, not because they are too intellectual.
Wow, way to broad-brush my future profession.

[Edial]

Well see you just proven my point again. First of all you don't know me and what I do. I belong to a Christian motorcycle group and up until my cycle accident I was involved in talking/witnessing to the all the outlaw motorcycle groups at any given rally, including the gay and lesbian bikers. I rode with them. I talked with them and I ate with them. I spent time in the maximum security prisons talking to murderers, rapist, child molesters and killers, Aryans, Mexican Mafia, BGA VIce Lords, etc. That also included gays, lesbians and bi's.

Saying I live in an Ivory Tower is the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said to me. I tell them (bikers/prisoners) the same thing I would tell you. "Get right with God or die not tryin'. When you're sick and tired of being sick and tired then get the "crap" out of your head and get on your knees. Ask God to have pity on you to forgive your wayward soul and He will because you are being honest with Him and He truly loves you".
Great post, Rad. :amen: ... :thumbsup:

[LutheranMafia]

Well see you just proven my point again. First of all you don't know me and what I do. I belong to a Christian motorcycle group and up until my cycle accident I was involved in talking/witnessing to the all the outlaw motorcycle groups at any given rally, including the gay and lesbian bikers. I rode with them. I talked with them and I ate with them. I spent time in the maximum security prisons talking to murderers, rapist, child molesters and killers, Aryans, Mexican Mafia, BGA VIce Lords, etc. That also included gays, lesbians and bi's.

Saying I live in an Ivory Tower is the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said to me. I tell them (bikers/prisoners) the same thing I would tell you. "Get right with God or die not tryin'. When you're sick and tired of being sick and tired then get the "crap" out of your head and get on your knees. Ask God to have pity on you to forgive your wayward soul and He will because you are being honest with Him and He truly loves you".
Well, now you are shifting from gays too Hell's Angels and criminal types, where there is a more self-apparent problem with God, but ironically a group that would, no matter how sinful, mostly agree with your attitudes on gays. Being friends with criminal types (tax collectors in a modern sense would be government sanctioned mafiosos) isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily make you culturally sensitive. In fact it could just as well be more likely the reverse for all I know, so your point about how talking to bikers makes you more culturally and personally sensitive is not all that convincing.

So you say I'm creating meaningless distinctions that have no bearing on the topic, while I claim that you are oversimplifying a more complex issue with a number of almost entirely distinct facets. Even if all you are interested in is converting people to being hetero-Christians, you aren't going to convince many people if you don't understand at least something about the psychology of the various sub-groups. If you oversimplify, then your evangelism is doomed to be ineffective.

[LutheranMafia]

Where do you get this definition of sin?
Common sense. Do all statements of common sense have to be encoded in the Bible in order to be accepted as true?

Wow, way to broad-brush my future profession.Its an old cliché. Ever heard of the "God complex"? It is only used in reference to doctors.

[Melethiel]

Common sense. Do all statements of common sense have to be encoded in the Bible in order to be accepted as true?
You're not going to get very far in theological arguments with appeals to "common sense". Most of Christianity does not mesh with common sense. Is it common sense to say God can be three persons, and yet One? Is it common sense to say that Life came through death? Is it common sense to say that Christ was fully God and fully Man? Is it common sense to say that one is spiritually reborn through water, or that the bread and wine is the very presence of God in the flesh?

If we believe and confess that man is by nature sinful - and that attraction can be sin (ie., lust) - then your "common sense" goes right out the window. Now, I'll agree with you that homosexuality has a genetic component, and that one can't always change the orientation. However, every one of us has a predisposition to sin - some are habitual liars, some gossip, some are proud. The question is - does one act on, or dwell on these temptations, or pray to God for help and forgiveness?
Its an old cliché. Ever heard of the "God complex"? It is only used in reference to doctors.
Stereotypes are not always true.

[RadMan]

Well, now you are shifting from gays too Hell's Angels and criminal types, where there is a more self-apparent problem with God, but ironically a group that would, no matter how sinful, mostly agree with your attitudes on gays. Being friends with criminal types (tax collectors in a modern sense would be government sanctioned mafiosos) isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily make you culturally sensitive. In fact it could just as well be more likely the reverse for all I know, so your point about how talking to bikers makes you more culturally and personally sensitive is not all that convincing.

So you say I'm creating meaningless distinctions that have no bearing on the topic, while I claim that you are oversimplifying a more complex issue with a number of almost entirely distinct facets. Even if all you are interested in is converting people to being hetero-Christians, you aren't going to convince many people if you don't understand at least something about the psychology of the various sub-groups. If you oversimplify, then your evangelism is doomed to be ineffective.You accuse everyone here of stereotyping when you are doing most of the stereotyping yourself. You try and put all of us in this neat little box as you tried with me in my last post and then dodged around it. First you say I'm not sensitive to people's proclivity and then when you are confronted with the facts you try and dodge around that and say I can't understand them unless I'm one of them. Do I have to be a murderer rapist, homosexualm gang banger to understand them? No, I just need to know they need Jesus and His forgiveness. I don't have to delve into their perversity to understand that God forgives sins no matter who they are. As the saying goes:
K.I.S.S - Keep it simple stupid

[LutheranMafia]

The reason homosexual attraction exists is not because it is OK. There are also attractions to children and animals. It is not OK. Also, some have desires to murder and steal. It is not OK either.
I disagree, people are not sexually attracted to children or animals as a result of the way God made them, usually. Such things are almost always the product of severe childhood abuse. You have shifted the argument to nature vs. nurture, which doesn’t really address my original point. My main point was, is this unnatural or natural? For something to be unnatural it must be contrary to nature.

Person's character has this "plasticity" (the term you used) that "sees" kind of shallow.
Many Mafia murderers are great family people and protect children as much as others.
My use of the term sexual plasticity had direct connection to morality. If I had been saying that, I would also have been saying that one gender is clearly morally superior to the other. I wasn’t saying anything like that.

Due to our plasticity, we can justify about anything and feel guiltless about it.
No, men have little or no sexual plasticity. Different topic.

However, there is something bigger at stake here.
Willful and guiltless homosexual activities (together with other activities) stand as a huge barrier between a person and salvation.
Why? Other than its potential to be peripherally associated with child sex abuse, I do not see any intrinsically obvious barrier.

1CO 6:9-10 ... Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That is as specific as the Bible gets. It never attempts to explain why it has this judgment. Such an explanation is not necessary for the others, the harm they can cause to one’s own character or to others is self-apparent. How does homosexuality adversely affect one’s character or harm others? Culture judgment of gays can turn them into emotional cripples, which can certainly have and adverse effect on their character, but that is external, not internal.

If they agree that thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers are not fit for Heaven, don't you think it is a bit short-sighted to say that homosexuals will?
Why is falling in love a sin, ever? Obvious not all homosexual love is true love any more than it is with us, but never the less, if it is true, in a lifelong committed partnership, I can’t see the first reason why God would frown upon it and then turn around and accept a hetero married couple that never loved each other.

There probably also some people that are greedy and say that the Bible is not correct on this, yet is correct on the homosexual part.More to the point, if you drink too much are you damned?

What makes one say that a homosexual sin is not a sin, yet other things are?Because even the 2nd most innocuous example from the list is still obviously potentially quite detrimental in and of itself. I simply don’t see how true love can ever be a sin.

[LutheranMafia]

[/size][/font]You're not going to get very far in theological arguments with appeals to "common sense". Most of Christianity does not mesh with common sense.
That is a serious problem, bad interpretations of the Bible fostered by lack of common sense. Without a good dose of common sense religion becomes fanaticism.

Is it common sense to say God can be three persons, and yet One?
Body, mind and spirit, we have three parts too, in the image of God, so I don’t see this as being at all contrary to common sense.

Is it common sense to say that Life came through death?
The spiritual theme of death, transformation and rebirth is omnipresent in all world religions and shamanistic traditions. It is a basic theme in all religions.

Is it common sense to say that Christ was fully God and fully Man?
The oldest religion on the planet also believes that God incarnates as a man, so it is nothing new or unfamiliar to the human race. Using just a little bit of common sense, one can quickly ascertain that if God did not incarnate as a man He would have some credibility issues. In the Devil’s Advocate Al Pacino played the devil just a little too well, at the point when, with enormous passion, he accuses God of being an absentee landlord and an armchair quarterback, it sent cold chills down my spine. If God does not incarnate as a man, God would be profoundly vulnerable to this criticism. Fortunately, He is not.

Is it common sense to say that one is spiritually reborn through water, or that the bread and wine is the very presence of God in the flesh?Food ceremonies are extremely common in world religions, where the spiritual essence of the master or guru (whether ascended or living) is imbued in the food. The Bible also refers to demonic food ceremonies and warns against eating the food offered at Roman temples, because it is imbued with demonic spiritual energy, just as communion is imbued with the spirit of God.

If we believe and confess that man is by nature sinful - and that attraction can be sin (ie., lust) - then your "common sense" goes right out the window.That depends on how you define lust. Lust as a sin is infatuation without love, just a physical attraction, not a spiritual one. In true love, the more physical attraction there is the better. That might be lust, or it might not be, depending on how it is being used in English.

Now, I'll agree with you that homosexuality has a genetic component, and that one can't always change the orientation. However, every one of us has a predisposition to sin - some are habitual liars, some gossip, some are proud. The question is - does one act on, or dwell on these temptations, or pray to God for help and forgiveness?
I just don’t believe that true love is something you ever need to apologize to God for. If it is lust and not love, that is a whole different matter and then it doesn’t make any difference what your sexual orientation is, it is still spiritually harmful.

Perhaps I should approach the issue in a different way, do you think that it is impossible for a homosexual man to find true love with another man in a lifelong committed partnership?

[Edial]

I disagree, people are not sexually attracted to children or animals as a result of the way God made them, usually. Such things are almost always the product of severe childhood abuse. You have shifted the argument to nature vs. nurture, which doesn’t really address my original point. My main point was, is this unnatural or natural? For something to be unnatural it must be contrary to nature.

My use of the term sexual plasticity had direct connection to morality. If I had been saying that, I would also have been saying that one gender is clearly morally superior to the other. I wasn’t saying anything like that.

No, men have little or no sexual plasticity. Different topic.

Why? Other than its potential to be peripherally associated with child sex abuse, I do not see any intrinsically obvious barrier.

That is as specific as the Bible gets. It never attempts to explain why it has this judgment. Such an explanation is not necessary for the others, the harm they can cause to one’s own character or to others is self-apparent. How does homosexuality adversely affect one’s character or harm others? Culture judgment of gays can turn them into emotional cripples, which can certainly have and adverse effect on their character, but that is external, not internal.

Why is falling in love a sin, ever? Obvious not all homosexual love is true love any more than it is with us, but never the less, if it is true, in a lifelong committed partnership, I can’t see the first reason why God would frown upon it and then turn around and accept a hetero married couple that never loved each other.

More to the point, if you drink too much are you damned?

Because even the 2nd most innocuous example from the list is still obviously potentially quite detrimental in and of itself. I simply don’t see how true love can ever be a sin.
OK. No problem.

I also know that there are many people that debate in that direction because, well, they do not really believe in Heaven and stuff like that.
They are mostly interested in what they want right here and right now.

I certainly will not judge them.
Not my place.

Thanks,
Ed

[LutheranMafia]

First you say I'm not sensitive to people's proclivity and then when you are confronted with the facts you try and dodge around that and say I can't understand them unless I'm one of them.
I didn't say you have to be gay to be respectful and compassionate towards them, anymore than you have to be a woman in order to have respect and compassion for them.

And I didn't dodge, being friends with hoodlums and seedy types simply doesn't make you culturally or personally sensitive. Gay men are typically more refined and intelligent than other males, not less so. Your supposed example of sensitivity was 180 degrees in the wrong direction, towards people that are less refined and less intelligent.

Do I have to be a murderer rapist, homosexualm gang banger to understand them?Perhaps if you weren't so flustered and insecure on the point you would be able to address statements I actually made rather than, in a huff, fabricating statements that I never made. Being able to listen attentively is another key indicator of emotional and moral sensitivity.

[LutheranMafia]

I also know that there are many people that debate in that direction because, well, they do not really believe in Heaven and stuff like that.
You mean gays that argue like that? And what do you suppose makes them prone to reject Christianity? I think as many or more straights are disturbed by bigotry and intolerance.

They are mostly interested in what they want right here and right now.
The fact that most straights are also into instant carnal gratification doesn't make heterosexuality immoral. For the purposes of evaluating potential salvation, you can't focus on the lowest examples, that is not an even handed analysis.

The Bible says that those who teach will be held to a much harsher standard on Judgment Day. If you not only misinterpret the Bible, but do so in a why that morally repulses people and turns them away from religion, what happens to you on Judgment Day? Religious and sexual bigotry is Christianity's single weakest flaw, and I think it is entirely a product of lack of human compassion, and not a proper reading of the Bible.

[Melethiel]

Body, mind and spirit, we have three parts too, in the image of God, so I don’t see this as being at all contrary to common sense. Not analogous to the Trinity, as those are all parts of the whole, not the whole in itself.
The spiritual theme of death, transformation and rebirth is omnipresent in all world religions and shamanistic traditions. It is a basic theme in all religions.But what does that have to do with whether it's "common sense"? Many religions contain at least a glimmer, a faint reflection of the Truth.
The oldest religion on the planet also believes that God incarnates as a manHindu incarnation is quite different from the Christian Incarnation.
Food ceremonies are extremely common in world religions, where the spiritual essence of the master or guru (whether ascended or living) is imbued in the food. The Bible also refers to demonic food ceremonies and warns against eating the food offered at Roman temples, because it is imbued with demonic spiritual energy, just as communion is imbued with the spirit of God.Communion is "imbued with the spirit of God"? Oi. Looks like someone needs to revisit the Catechism.

And again, what does comparative religions have to do with "common sense"?

Perhaps I should approach the issue in a different way, do you think that it is impossible for a homosexual man to find true love with another man in a lifelong committed partnership?Define "true love".

It's also interesting that you are so quick to call conservatives "bigoted" and "intolerant", and yet you are the one who is making stereotypes and blaming us for all the ills of the religion. Pot, meet kettle.

ETA: Would you mind citing the studies from which you got your information about gay men and intelligence, success vs. failure rates, etc? I'm interested in seeing the methods used to determine these conclusions.

[Edial]

You mean gays that argue like that? And what do you suppose makes them prone to reject Christianity? I think as many or more straights are disturbed by bigotry and intolerance.

The fact that most straights are also into instant carnal gratification doesn't make heterosexuality immoral. For the purposes of evaluating potential salvation, you can't focus on the lowest examples, that is not an even handed analysis.

The Bible says that those who teach will be held to a much harsher standard on Judgment Day. If you not only misinterpret the Bible, but do so in a why that morally repulses people and turns them away from religion, what happens to you on Judgment Day? Religious and sexual bigotry is Christianity's single weakest flaw, and I think it is entirely a product of lack of human compassion, and not a proper reading of the Bible.
Why are you saying that?

What other possible way a Christian teacher has to teach, but that what the Bible says?

Don't you think that the Judgement pendulum would reach the ones that promote that what the Bible is against?

What do I know concerning the Heavens, but that what the Bible states about the Heavens?
What do I know about life itself except that what the Bibles teaches?

We sit like worms on this Earth that rotates with a mind-boggling speed and imagine lofty ways of spiritual stability and righteousness while not even being able to negotiate what we want for dinner?

Who are we to say that the Bible is wrong? What is our aithority?

My goodness, man.

[RadMan]

Thanks for being so condescending about my Christian ministry and about the " hoodlums and seedy types". Especially the gay and lesbian bikers that according to you are "people that are less refined and less intelligent" You're contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.

[DaRev]

Since there is some debate as to whether there were any humans before the Fall, that is potentially an easy argument to make, even though the Bible says nothing about it.

This is the first time I've heard this one. No humans before the fall? What were Adam and Eve? Hippopotami?

The Bible also prohibits all sorts of other things such as the wearing of polyester. Much of it Christians dismiss without the slightest flinch, and yet other issues which aren't even stressed, they cling to tenaciously.

That's the difference in what the Law is. The moral Law has not changed. The ceremonial Law, which included clothing and dietary laws among other things, was fulfilled by Christ's incarnation. It's not that Christians have dismissed anything. Christ has fulfilled those laws that pointed to His coming when He actually came.

[DaRev]

I simply don’t see how true love can ever be a sin.

"True" love would be God pleasing. By His own word homosexual love is not at all pleasing to Him. It's black and white, clear as crystal. He gave us His word to show us who He is and what He expects. When we willfully go against that, that is sin, pure and simple. And the wages of sin is death, also black and white, clear as crystal. You can try and explain it away with faulty fallen human reason and "common" sense all you want. It doesn't change the immutable truth of the matter.

[stumpjumper]

I guess I'll find out next year when they finalize their "study".

Though, to be honest, I'm not sure why they need to do a few years long study on this issue and I have seen a lot of people get frustrated with the synod over it.

Some have even left the Lutheran Church. Life long Lutherans, and good friends of ours, now go to Calvary Chapel because of this issue the last incarnation.

*sigh*

[Studeclunker]

I guess I'll find out next year when they finalize their "study".

Though, to be honest, I'm not sure why they need to do a few years long study on this issue and I have seen a lot of people get frustrated with the synod over it.

Some have even left the Lutheran Church. Life long Lutherans, and good friends of ours, now go to Calvary Chapel because of this issue the last incarnation.

*sigh*

Yes, well, that's what I stated earlier. I knew the last time that this issue would be finally pushed... no, forced upon the laity by a perverted leadership. Yes, I DO use the word perverted in the right context. Am I angry about being forced out of the denomination I had been born into? You betcha, fella! I went to Chuck's church in Costa Mesa for years. He's got a lot going for him. Doctrine and sloppy agape are his weaknessess, but as Paul said, "even in error the Gospel message is preached." Yet Homosexuality is just one of the problems (largely sexual sin in general) he delt with so often. This issue of weather men and women should be involved in homosexual affairs of any kind has been answered ad nauseum for the past two thousand years! Mankind still hasn't learnt the lesson and the ELCA demonstrates that fact. This stubbornness is why our denomination has two sub-forums.

Boys and girls, cheap shots and denegrating remarks aside, one must learn that Lutherans take the Bible seriously. The problems arise in not so much what the Bible says, as to weather that word is valid. ELCA has demonstrated their stance on this issue and the OP has brought a painful fact (more like ELCA picking at a wound) back into the light. The Bible is either the word of the unchanging everliving God, or it is not. If so, no matter how society changes and evolves, it must conform to God. The reverse is just... sophestry.

Lutheranmafia, you speak of your point of view eloquently. In fact, you are a perfect proponent for the ELCA's stance. The problem is that you also have a tendency of taking the position that only you are right and talk down to the other posters. You commit some of the same mistakes in this area that I myself am guilty of. However, in this context, it just might behoove you to try attracting a few flys with honey rather than vinegar (another of my own failings:o ). Ed is a good example to follow. In fact, he's probably one of the best authorities and participants in this forum.

[Studeclunker]

Food ceremonies are extremely common in world religions, where the spiritual essence of the master or guru (whether ascended or living) is imbued in the food. The Bible also refers to demonic food ceremonies and warns against eating the food offered at Roman temples, because it is imbued with demonic spiritual energy, just as communion is imbued with the spirit of God.


Um, may I respectfully recommend you read First Corinthians again?:sorry: Paul remarks that eating of food that has been offered first to idols is most definitely not a sin. He also remarks that it is common knowledge amoung Christians that the idol is nothing but a stone image and therefore the meat is just meat. Paul does caution us though, not to offend the neophyte or 'weaker breatheran' by eating this food in front of them. He also quantifies vegan diets as a symptom of this weakness.

Please be very careful of comparing Christianity to any other of the world's religions. "I am the way, the truth, and the light. There is no other way to the Father, except through me!" With this definitive statement made by Christ himself, that makes any argument comparing Christianity to other religions invalid. This is because any religion except Judeo-Christian is false! I don't care how old they claim to be!

[RevCowboy]

I was just wondering what will happen to the ELCA after the Task force on sexuality has released their findings in '09? There can be two conclusions. The first that gay pastors can be allowed to be in a relationship, or that they cannot. What will be the effects on the ELCA if the first conclusion is made?

Well... as a clergy type person vaguely affiliated with the ELCA (and I think the only one to respond thus far in this thread) I should say something.

So here it goes: Something.

J/k.

The short answer to the OP question:
Actually the Task Force will probably not pick one answer or the other, I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the Task Force will recommend nothing and its answer will also be a vague way of saying nothing. That is the way things are done by entities called task forces in the church.

Now here is my longer answer:

To be honest, I am not really sure what the ELCA has voted on this issue at their last convention.

Here in the Canada, our tiny ELCIC has voted at its last two conventions against motions that allowed either congregations or individual synods (districts) to decide whether or not to bless same-sex marriages. The gay pastor issue is not really being talked about here. Now, keep in mind that Canada has legalized same-sex marriage and it was legal before both of the last two conventions. Therefore tied up in this issue is not only the theological issue, but political and even legal. It could become very well an issue of which human right trumps another here. Does freedom of religion allows us to deny same-sex couples marriages in our churches, or is the right to marry trump religious freedom? So far the government and courts have sided with churches, and as it turns our gay couples are not breaking down the doors of churches waiting to get married. Right now the legality of denying someone marriage based on sexual orientation is a non-issue, despite theoretically it is a against the charter of rights and freedoms in Canada.

So while yes, the ELCIC has voted on this issue which I find somewhat disappointing, it has also made an exceptionally counter-cultural statement by voting against same-sex blessing twice! And considering this issue here is not just a social one, but now government policy I think we are rather brave.

If the ELCA is anything like the ELCIC, the vast majority of the layity is against any thing to do with same-sex issues. There is a certain generation of pastors (typically who were trained in the 80's) who seem to be loosey goosey on a lot of stuff (folk liturgy loving hippies) Probably has to do with being a teenager in the 70's if you know what I mean;). At the same time there is a group of pastors the same age who reacted to the loosey gooseyness by being ultra fundamentalist (liturgy hating charismatics).

This diametically opposed group is now the power group. They have now just wrestled power form the old guard and have a little time to run a muck until use more moderate orthodox and stable folks get out of seminary and into the parishes.

I just got back from our Synod Pastor's Study conference. I heard over and over again that young seminary students were supposed to be crazy left wing nuts, and not liturgy, history and confessions loving orthodox Lutherans.... as we are mostly turning out to be.

Okay, I am going to duck behind my desk chair now...

[stumpjumper]

The short answer to the OP question:
Actually the Task Force will probably not pick one answer or the other, I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the Task Force will recommend nothing and its answer will also be a vague way of saying nothing. That is the way things are done by entities called task forces in the church.


Those are my thoughts as well.

In fact, that's what happened the last time this thing came up Summer of 06 or something. A lot of people got upset, we had long discussions in Church Council, and the results basically said nothing.

[RadMan]

iI guess I'll find out next year when they finalize their "study".

Though, to be honest, I'm not sure why they need to do a few years long study on this issue and I have seen a lot of people get frustrated with the synod over it.

Some have even left the Lutheran Church. Life long Lutherans, and good friends of ours, now go to Calvary Chapel because of this issue the last incarnation.

*sigh*WHat's ths "last incarnation" thing?

[stumpjumper]

iWHat's ths "last incarnation" thing?

They did this same exact thing a couple of years ago,

I think the summer of '06???

[RadMan]

They did this same exact thing a couple of years ago,

I think the summer of '06???OK but what is it?

[stumpjumper]

OK but what is it?

Here is the 2005 report:
http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/resources/tfreport.html

[Studeclunker]

Wishhhhhh... Pfaff! A snowball splatters on the back of RevCowboy's desk chair (LOL)!;)

Cowboy, I really liked your response. It was very well said. However, it reminded me of the lines Peter Ustinov so very well delivered in the Luther movie:


S = Spalitin
L = Fredrick the wise (Peter Ustinov)

S: So what shall we say to the Cardinal?

L: Ahem... Nothing...

S: My Lord, we have to respond!

L: Spalitin, there are two ways of saying no to someone you believe to be stronger than yourself:

The first is to say nothing... and your merely doing what you were doing before, and pretend you never heard, allow time and inertia to be your allies...

S: And the second?

L: And the second is to say no in such a kind and thoughtful way it befuddles them. Heh, heh, heh...

Naturally, if both these strategies fail, there is nothing but to relent... or to FIGHT! But, if you decide to fight, you also have to decide to WIN!


The current problem with the Lutheran church is that the two options of no response and saying no in a befuddling way have already been used and failed. So now, the ELCA is appearing to relent. This is absolutely unacceptable to most Lutherans. The time has come to fight this. In your case that may mean taking the government of Canada on. What does religious freedom mean? What does it stand for? Does this mean that if the government decides that they don't like a particular tennet of a religion that they can quash a particular faith? I honestly don't believe that we, in the U.S., are too very far behind. This issue may be decided for us and we also will soon be forced to say no to the government. What the result will be is up to God. Nevertheless and however, we are called to defend the faith. That includes what that faith stands for and upon. If our faith stands upon the Word of God, then we must defend that. Hence the tart character of this conversation.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

To be honest, I am not really sure what the ELCA has voted on this issue at their last convention.

Here in the Canada, our tiny ELCIC has voted at its last two conventions against motions that allowed either congregations or individual synods (districts) to decide whether or not to bless same-sex marriages.

So while yes, the ELCIC has voted on this issue which I find somewhat disappointing, it has also made an exceptionally counter-cultural statement by voting against same-sex blessing twice!

Rev. Cowboy,

With all due respect, my experience with ELCIC is somewhat different.

I used to watch St. Peter's (Kitchener) early service before I went to my LCC Congregation. The last time I watched and I mean the last time, there was a Lesbian Pastor preaching, promoting same sex marriage. Way to much for me to take in. In my mind, rightly or wrongly, they are no longer a Church in the Biblical sense.

Likewise, with entering into full fellowship with the Anglican Church of Canada ELCIC has in effect accepted their doctrine and teaching. The ACC IS pro homosexual everything. The Congregation 100 feet from my house has an assistant Priest who is a practicing homosexual, or he was until his partner died a year or so ago.

I respect your position and belief, but I can not accept the position of ELCIC regardless of the rhetoric that they hide behind.

I mean no offense, but in the light of Scripture, here I stand.

Mark

[RevCowboy]

The current problem with the Lutheran church is that the two options of no response and saying no in a befuddling way have already been used and failed. So now, the ELCA is appearing to relent. This is absolutely unacceptable to most Lutherans. The time has come to fight this. In your case that may mean taking the government of Canada on. What does religious freedom mean? What does it stand for? Does this mean that if the government decides that they don't like a particular tennet of a religion that they can quash a particular faith? I honestly don't believe that we, in the U.S., are too very far behind. This issue may be decided for us and we also will soon be forced to say no to the government. What the result will be is up to God. Nevertheless and however, we are called to defend the faith. That includes what that faith stands for and upon. If our faith stands upon the Word of God, then we must defend that. Hence the tart character of this conversation.
At the time the legislative motion was passed by our government, the possibility of churches being forced to marry same-sex couples was a worry. However, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Government sided with religious freedom. If a same-sex couple cannot get married in the church, they can get married somewhere else by a justice of the peace was the rationale. The issue is not about the government telling us which doctrines we can hold, but how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is interpreted when rights come into conflict.

Interestingly, since 2005 when same sex marriage was passed in to law, the issue has pretty much fallen away from secular attention. I think in the following year way less than 1% of marriages were same sex, not the 10% as predicted.

Personally, I think that legalized same-sex marriage is not really a big issue. It is not as if there were a bunch of same sex couples on the fence about being gay that are now gay. In some ways this has shown what an insignificant portion of the population this affects. If gay couples want to pay taxes and get divorced than so be it. As long as churches don't have to perform blessings of same-sex couples, I am largely ambivalent about legalized same sex marriage. Lutherans believe that marriage is a state contract anyways, so let the state do as it wills as long as we are free to do as we will.

[DaRev]

Lutherans believe that marriage is a state contract anyways, so let the state do as it wills as long as we are free to do as we will.

What Lutherans believe that?

Lutherans believe marriage is a God-made union.

[RevCowboy]

Rev. Cowboy,

With all due respect, my experience with ELCIC is somewhat different.

I used to watch St. Peter's (Kitchener) early service before I went to my LCC Congregation. The last time I watched and I mean the last time, there was a Lesbian Pastor preaching, promoting same sex marriage. Way to much for me to take in. In my mind, rightly or wrongly, they are no longer a Church in the Biblical sense.

Likewise, with entering into full fellowship with the Anglican Church of Canada ELCIC has in effect accepted their doctrine and teaching. The ACC IS pro homosexual everything. The Congregation 100 feet from my house has an assistant Priest who is a practicing homosexual, or he was until his partner died a year or so ago.

I respect your position and belief, but I can not accept the position of ELCIC regardless of the rhetoric that they hide behind.

I mean no offense, but in the light of Scripture, here I stand.

Mark


There are no practicing homosexual pastors (or non-practicing that are open about their sexuality as far as I know) in the ELCIC, so I don't know who was preaching on TV. Yet, I do admit that the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC is more liberal than the western synods. The eastern synod also has acted unconstitutionally. I suspect there will be a regional split in the ELCIC with east and west dividing.

If there was a Lesbian pastor preaching in favour of same sex marriage in an ELCIC church it was against the theology, constitution and practice of the ELCIC and by no means anything other than unique. That pastor would be defrocked if she was actually a practicing lesbian.

About the ELCIC's full communion agreement with the Anglican Church of Canada, we have not accepted their teaching and doctrine. Rather, the agreement is more about sharing resources. The Waterloo declaration outlines that we are close enough in theological agreement to share full altar and pulpit fellowship, however, neither Church is bound to the doctrinal decisions of the other.

Now, the ACC being pro homosexual everything is simply untrue. I have had lots and lots of experience with Anglicans, they are largely against same sex issues. The also voted against same sex blessings. at their national convention last summer. The problem is that each Bishop is the highest power in their own diocese. Admittedly, the biggest grievance of our Bishops is administrative issues with Anglicans. Like with every congregation in the ELCIC, I cannot say that I know about the circumstance of each Anglican priest, but gay priests are not the norm. However, priests serving in Lutheran churches are bound by the same rules as Lutheran pastors. Therefore if there were a practicing homosexual Anglican priest, he or she could not serve in a Lutheran parish.

I don't understand what you mean by you cannot accept the position of the ELCIC. Our position is that we do not bless same sex marriage nor do we allow homosexual pastors. We have affirmed that position at each of our last two national conventions.

[RevCowboy]

What Lutherans believe that?

Lutherans believe marriage is a God-made union.

Matrimony is the God-made union. Marriage is a legal contract with the state. When Pastors preside at marriages, they are acting on behalf of the state.


From the Defence of the Augsburg Confession:

14] Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the beginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has, moreover, God's command; it has also promises, not indeed properly pertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily life. Wherefore, if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, he ought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones [the two former ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, and testimonies of grace and the remission of sins. 15] But if marriage will have the name of sacrament for the reason that it has God's command, other states or offices also, which have God's command, may be called sacraments, as, for example, the magistracy.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There are no practicing homosexual pastors (or non-practicing that are open about their sexuality as far as I know) in the ELCIC, so I don't know who was preaching on TV. Yet, I do admit that the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC is more liberal than the western synods. The eastern synod also has acted unconstitutionally. I suspect there will be a regional split in the ELCIC with east and west dividing.

If there was a Lesbian pastor preaching in favour of same sex marriage in an ELCIC church it was against the theology, constitution and practice of the ELCIC and by no means anything other than unique. That pastor would be defrocked if she was actually a practicing lesbian.

About the ELCIC's full communion agreement with the Anglican Church of Canada, we have not accepted their teaching and doctrine. Rather, the agreement is more about sharing resources. The Waterloo declaration outlines that we are close enough in theological agreement to share full altar and pulpit fellowship, however, neither Church is bound to the doctrinal decisions of the other.

Now, the ACC being pro homosexual everything is simply untrue. I have had lots and lots of experience with Anglicans, they are largely against same sex issues. The also voted against same sex blessings. at their national convention last summer. The problem is that each Bishop is the highest power in their own diocese. Admittedly, the biggest grievance of our Bishops is administrative issues with Anglicans. Like with every congregation in the ELCIC, I cannot say that I know about the circumstance of each Anglican priest, but gay priests are not the norm. However, priests serving in Lutheran churches are bound by the same rules as Lutheran pastors. Therefore if there were a practicing homosexual Anglican priest, he or she could not serve in a Lutheran parish.

I don't understand what you mean by you cannot accept the position of the ELCIC. Our position is that we do not bless same sex marriage nor do we allow homosexual pastors. We have affirmed that position at each of our last two national conventions.

I truly hope that what I have had observed are isolated situations, but please understand that the opinions I have are based on what I have experienced. I'm a farm boy and therefore very pragmatic: If it walks like a duck...

(Again, pragmatism kicks in...)

I don't quite get how being in fellowship with another denomination does not imply acceptance of their doctrine, and if not the outward appearance of fellowship DOES imply acceptance, does it not?

Mark

[DaRev]

Matrimony is the God-made union. Marriage is a legal contract with the state. When Pastors preside at marriages, they are acting on behalf of the state.


From the Defence of the Augsburg Confession:

14] Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the beginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has, moreover, God's command; it has also promises, not indeed properly pertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily life. Wherefore, if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, he ought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones [the two former ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, and testimonies of grace and the remission of sins. 15] But if marriage will have the name of sacrament for the reason that it has God's command, other states or offices also, which have God's command, may be called sacraments, as, for example, the magistracy.

Two things...

I have always understood that the terms "marriage" and "matrimony" are synonomous. Two words for the same act.

Second, the quote from the Apology deals with the RCC calling matrimony a sacrament. I don't see how you draw your conclusion from it.

[RevCowboy]

I don't quite get how being in fellowship with another denomination does not imply acceptance of their doctrine, and if not the outward appearance of fellowship DOES imply acceptance, does it not?

Mark

Well, this is a rather sticky issue... The Waterloo Declaration is a rather vague document, but what is clear is that we agree enough on essential doctrines (or at least we agreed enough in 2001) enough to share communion with each other and to share clergy.

We agree on things like the Trinity, Original Sin, Baptism, Eucharistic theology, justification etc... So Anglicans and Lutherans can commune together because we both believe in the Real Presence.

We don't agree necessarily on apostolic succession.

The big issue that WD doesn't clarify is the where the highest authority of doctrine when a Lutheran is serving in an Anglican congregation and vice versa. Lutherans ordination vows are to Scripture, the Creeds and the Confessions. Anglicans however, vow to uphold the theology of their ordaining Bishop. In fact Priests need a liscence from a bishop to preside at Eucharist. The simplified version of the Lutheran view is that the pastor is the highest teaching office in the congregation, Lutheran pastors are essentially the episcopos (Bishops in the sense the RC, Orthodox, Anglican understand the teaching office of Bishops) of their congregations.

So an Anglican would still be accountable to his Anglican Bishop in a Lutheran parish and its concievable the Bishop could have theology contrary to the Lutheran theology. But even more problematic would be that Lutheran would be accountable to an Anglican Bishop's theology when serving in an Anglican parish.

I wrote a paper in seminary that argued that even though the ELCIC and the ACC agree on essential doctrines, our ecclesiology is incompatible. My profs agree with me, and they were overseers in the writing of the Waterloo Declaration.

As far a Anglican doctrine goes, its determined by the Bishops, and the closest thing they have to a confession document is their Book of Common Prayer. So agreeing to their doctrine is like agreeing with a pile of mud, its just not clear. Yet the Waterloo Declaration is so vague that it doesn't hold either church to each other's doctrine, which I stated before.

In the end however, the full communion agreement is about sharing resources. The ELCIC is suffering a severe pastor shortage, while the ACC has too many clergy.

[RevCowboy]

Two things...

I have always understood that the terms "marriage" and "matrimony" are synonomous. Two words for the same act.

Second, the quote from the Apology deals with the RCC calling matrimony a sacrament. I don't see how you draw your conclusion from it.

Sub section 15 is comparing marriage to other civil offices or magistracies. It seems to be making a distinction between marriage the civil contract which is not a sacrament and matrimony which is God ordained.

I cannot remember where Luther said it, but he said something to the effect of marriage is"nothing more than a purely human and secular state, with which God has nothing to do". I think he is being polemical, but he wanted to be clear that the legal arrangement of marriage was a state matter and not a sacrament.

[DaRev]

Sub section 15 is comparing marriage to other civil offices or magistracies. It seems to be making a distinction between marriage the civil contract which is not a sacrament and matrimony which is God ordained.

I cannot remember where Luther said it, but he said something to the effect of marriage is"nothing more than a purely human and secular state, with which God has nothing to do". I think he is being polemical, but he wanted to be clear that the legal arrangement of marriage was a state matter and not a sacrament.

But I do not believe that Luther or the Confessions deny that marriage is a God ordained union. They make the distinction between that and a "Sacrament" as defined by Rome.

[Lupinus]

God ordained union or legal contract can be either or. It depends on what aspects you are referring to, but the words themselves are basically synonymous.

[RevCowboy]

God ordained union or legal contract can be either or. It depends on what aspects you are referring to, but the words themselves are basically synonymous.

Fair enough. Perhaps my distinction between matrimony and marriage is due to the context of the discussion going on in Canada, although I recall reading about the difference between the two somewhere. The distinction is that Luther saw is that the Church has something to do with the God ordained union while the legal contract issue is a state matter. The ELCIC has been talking about this distinction for quite some time. I imagine that should the government legislate that churches must perform same-sex blessings, the simplest answer would be for pastors of many denoms, as this is an issue facing all Christians, to give up their marriage licenses. If we are not acting agents of the state, they cannot make us do anything we don't want to.

This is how many European countries function. A couple goes an gets married by a public official and then the next day is blessed in the church.

At the same time this is probably why the Canadian government won't ever act to force clergy to perform same sex blessings. The government is essentially getting a free service from clergy and it would cost them a lot of have to pay public servants to marry every couple. Politicians think in terms of votes and money.

[RegularGuy]

No one has said it, but we are talking two kingdoms stuff here. The institution of marriage may be ordained by God but it belongs to the kingdom of the left.

Personally, I see marriage as essentially a religious construct. What I would like to see happen is for the State to go out of the marriage business. Let the State regulate and license domestic partnerships for the purposes of property ownership, taxation, insurance benefits and inheritance rights. Then the churches (yeah, plural) can decide for themselves who they wish to marry and what restrictions to place upon marriages. This is, essentially what polygamous sects already do....

As for the Sexuality study, I expect the Task Force will propose some sort of local option for homosexual unions and committed gay clergy. Whether the option will be entrusted to the synods or to congregations will be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the ELCA has a clear enough ecclesiolgy to rule out either option...an inheritance from our mutt pedigree.

Whatever the Task Force recommends, the ELCA will almost certainly suffer a rift. How severe the division will be told only by time.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, this is a rather sticky issue... The Waterloo Declaration is a rather vague document, but what is clear is that we agree enough on essential doctrines (or at least we agreed enough in 2001) enough to share communion with each other and to share clergy.

We agree on things like the Trinity, Original Sin, Baptism, Eucharistic theology, justification etc... So Anglicans and Lutherans can commune together because we both believe in the Real Presence.

We don't agree necessarily on apostolic succession.

The big issue that WD doesn't clarify is the where the highest authority of doctrine when a Lutheran is serving in an Anglican congregation and vice versa. Lutherans ordination vows are to Scripture, the Creeds and the Confessions. Anglicans however, vow to uphold the theology of their ordaining Bishop. In fact Priests need a liscence from a bishop to preside at Eucharist. The simplified version of the Lutheran view is that the pastor is the highest teaching office in the congregation, Lutheran pastors are essentially the episcopos (Bishops in the sense the RC, Orthodox, Anglican understand the teaching office of Bishops) of their congregations.

So an Anglican would still be accountable to his Anglican Bishop in a Lutheran parish and its concievable the Bishop could have theology contrary to the Lutheran theology. But even more problematic would be that Lutheran would be accountable to an Anglican Bishop's theology when serving in an Anglican parish.

I wrote a paper in seminary that argued that even though the ELCIC and the ACC agree on essential doctrines, our ecclesiology is incompatible. My profs agree with me, and they were overseers in the writing of the Waterloo Declaration.

As far a Anglican doctrine goes, its determined by the Bishops, and the closest thing they have to a confession document is their Book of Common Prayer. So agreeing to their doctrine is like agreeing with a pile of mud, its just not clear. Yet the Waterloo Declaration is so vague that it doesn't hold either church to each other's doctrine, which I stated before.

In the end however, the full communion agreement is about sharing resources. The ELCIC is suffering a severe pastor shortage, while the ACC has too many clergy.

Thanks for the explanation.

Would it be fair to surmise that while both the ELCIC and AC have agreed to accept the Waterloo Declaration, the interpretation and and meaning of the document may actually be different depending on which side of the fence you happen to be on?

Mark

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Fair enough. Perhaps my distinction between matrimony and marriage is due to the context of the discussion going on in Canada, although I recall reading about the difference between the two somewhere. The distinction is that Luther saw is that the Church has something to do with the God ordained union while the legal contract issue is a state matter. The ELCIC has been talking about this distinction for quite some time. I imagine that should the government legislate that churches must perform same-sex blessings, the simplest answer would be for pastors of many denoms, as this is an issue facing all Christians, to give up their marriage licenses. If we are not acting agents of the state, they cannot make us do anything we don't want to.

This is how many European countries function. A couple goes an gets married by a public official and then the next day is blessed in the church.

At the same time this is probably why the Canadian government won't ever act to force clergy to perform same sex blessings. The government is essentially getting a free service from clergy and it would cost them a lot of have to pay public servants to marry every couple. Politicians think in terms of votes and money.

I remember reading somewhere that Luther wrote something to the effect regarding people who co-habitate: "there are far more who are married than we previously thought" (or something close anyway). Meaning one does not require a Christian Marriage Ceremony to be married in a Christian sense, only the commitment and desire to live as Christians as husband and wife.

Likewise, the Church has never had much sauces trying to legislate obedience to Scripture. The mandate of the Church regarding marriage is to up hold the Scriptural definition only. Those who choose to defy Scriptures definition of marriage, choose to live outside the Church. They can call it marriage but if it falls outside God's definiton, then in God's eyes it is not. (A case of if it walks like a duck, it may not be a duck at all).

Mark

[RegularGuy]

Luther advised Henry VIII to against divorce and recommended that he, rather, engage in polygamy. Later, when Philip of Hesse wanted a polygamous marriage, Luther, rather reluctantly I think, approved but advised that Philip lie about the condition of his marriage.

The results were disastrous.

My point is that Luther, while he was very interested in taking marriage out of the realm of Sacrament, was not always of a mind to define marriage as "one man, one woman, and benefit of clergy."

[DaRev]

I think we can safely say that Luther was not infallible.

[PreachersWife2004]

So if this issue is so clear cut and your interpretation is the only reasonable one that any sane person can come to, then why is there a gay Lutheran minister? Why are we having this discussion in the first place? Clearly there is difference of opinion among the Lutheran clergy on this matter.

There has to be, in order to allow for gay ministers. That's kind of a DUH point. Sinful human beings are awesome at taking something that is sinful and trying to make it not a sin. But saying homosexuality isn't a sin doesn't make it so. The bible clearly says it is a sin. Show me in the bible where it doesn't say that.

But your mode of thinking will not tolerate this. Anyone who does not think as you do is clearly disagreeing with the Bible and not you. Such a humble evaluation of your own apparently flawless Biblical understanding. Thus, you must conclude that any Lutheran minister who disagrees is also disagreeing with the Bible, and not just you.

Darn tootin they're disagreeing with the bible. Ever read the passage about sexual immorality? Ever notice that the first ever "marriage" was between a male and a female? You don't think God did that by chance do you?

Sometimes things aren't as simple as people who don't really even care to think about a subject, would like to ram that subject into. Perhaps if there was even one gay person in this world that you really gave a damn about you might have a more thoughtful and humanly considerate opinion, something that Lutherans are generally well known for.

Leviticus 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&version=31&context=chapter) seems to really simplify the matter. We still keep these precepts in society, so why shouldn't homosexuality be the same?

As for your statement about "one gay person in this world that you really gave a damn about"...well, I have several, and I know in my heart that if they remain unrepentant in their sin they will go to hell. This pains me greatly, and your cheap shot isn't warranted or appreciated, even if you were speaking to DaRev specifically, since I do believe the same as he does.

[RevCowboy]

Thanks for the explanation.

Would it be fair to surmise that while both the ELCIC and AC have agreed to accept the Waterloo Declaration, the interpretation and and meaning of the document may actually be different depending on which side of the fence you happen to be on?

Mark

I don't know so much that interpretation is differing. The problem is that the WD doesn't clarify how we act when our doctrines, particularly ecclesiology, come into conflict. So rather than having a guide to work this stuff, its more of a case by case basis.

For example, an Anglican working in a chaplaincy for Lutheran institution had his license to minister taken away by his Bishop. The problem here was that Lutherans were the priest's boss, not the Anglican Bishop. The Bishop didn't have the authority to fire the Priest. The priest went along with the decision and resigned, but if he had fought it, it could have been a rift.

Thankfully there are hardly any Lutherans working for Anglicans. I have already decided that I cannot take a call to an Anglican church because I will have to compromise my ordination vows. An example of why is that only Anglican Bishops can preside at confirmation, while I would argue that Lutheran pastors, being called to the highest teaching office in a congregations, are the only ones who can confirm. The difference here is that Anglicans believe that the Bishop is the apostolic successor confirming the faith by laying on of hands, while Lutherans believe that pastors are confirming the faith through examination.

The WD is very unhelpful in this case by simply stating that pastors equal priests and the Bishops have the power of Bishops. So can priests confirm in Lutheran churches? Can Lutherans have their ordination vows superseded or qualified by Anglican Bishops? This questions are simply not answered... and 7 years after the WD, our Bishops are finally finding out what the ACC is a pile of doctrinal mud and it is one of the most stressful parts of their jobs as Lutheran bishops.

[RevCowboy]

I remember reading somewhere that Luther wrote something to the effect regarding people who co-habitate: "there are far more who are married than we previously thought" (or something close anyway). Meaning one does not require a Christian Marriage Ceremony to be married in a Christian sense, only the commitment and desire to live as Christians as husband and wife.

Likewise, the Church has never had much sauces trying to legislate obedience to Scripture. The mandate of the Church regarding marriage is to up hold the Scriptural definition only. Those who choose to defy Scriptures definition of marriage, choose to live outside the Church. They can call it marriage but if it falls outside God's definiton, then in God's eyes it is not. (A case of if it walks like a duck, it may not be a duck at all).

Mark

This is somewhat OT:

One somewhat interesting thing that I found out while doing research into this, was how similar to our modern society medieval society was.

The reason Anabaptists moved to adult baptism was because everyone was baptized in that society, yet few demonstrated their faith. Hardly anyone went to church and most people were not officially married because of the cost. Church baptism and marriage was largely collusion with the state to keep track of populations. It kinds of makes me laugh to think that we are worried the church is in terrible decline. Its not that we are declining, is that baptism has stopped being the state birth certificate.