ELCA vote on blessing same-sex unions and pastors

[sculpturegirl]

In the springtime the ELCA will vote on whether or not it will publish its new study on sexuality as well as blessing sam-sex unions and rostering those in same-sex unions. Each congrecation is hosting discussions on the matter, so I thought I would bring the discussion here. Any thoughts?

You can download the study here: http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/study02.html

[Protoevangel]

This debate is about whether or not God has the right to transform us into the image of Jesus as God sees fit, or if we may define for ourselves what we can do, based on our own desires. I have discussed this issue and considered every point that has been offered to me, and found every one of those points to come up drastically short of the burden of proof necessary to overturn Scripture’s explicit teaching on the subject.

One parable by G.K, Chesterton, in his book Heretics is particularly poignant to this situation we are currently facing in the ELCA:
Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good--" At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.We are rushing to tear down the light pole without pausing to see that the light is good. If we do make this change, we must so, on a strong Biblical conviction. I do not see that in this issue. The changes proposed would be a mistake.

On the other hand, there are a very few who go so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be excluded from church, or separate in some way. If one classification of sinner is to be “run out”, all sinners must be so treated, which would leave a very empty church. I fully applaud the steps that have been taken in church and culture to move from discrimination and persecution of homosexuals. We indeed ought to welcome gays into our congregations as we do all sinners who are in need of hearing the gospel of God’s love in Christ Jesus.

Abhorrence of a given behavior, including homosexuality, must coexist alongside love for the violators. Jesus demonstrated this perfectly by reaching out to the adulteress, to the tax collectors, and to other sinners that the Pharisees excluded. The person plagued by homosexual temptation should not incite our revulsion and hatred; we should not seek to devalue or ridicule that person, nor ostracize them from our midst. Instead, this person deserves our concern, empathy, help, and understanding.

God bless,
Dan,
Constantly disarmed of any self-righteousness by the Law and saved by God’s superabundant and undeserved Grace, for Christ’s sake alone.

[SPALATIN]

This debate is about whether or not God has the right to transform us into the image of Jesus as God sees fit, or if we may define for ourselves what we can do, based on our own desires. I have discussed this issue and considered every point that has been offered to me, and found every one of those points to come up drastically short of the burden of proof necessary to overturn Scripture’s explicit teaching on the subject.

One parable by G.K, Chesterton, in his book Heretics is particularly poignant to this situation we are currently facing in the ELCA:
We are rushing to tear down the light pole without pausing to see that the light is good. If we do make this change, we must so, on a strong Biblical conviction. I do not see that in this issue. The changes proposed would be a mistake.

On the other hand, there are a very few who go so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be excluded from church, or separate in some way. If one classification of sinner is to be “run out”, all sinners must be so treated, which would leave a very empty church. I fully applaud the steps that have been taken in church and culture to move from discrimination and persecution of homosexuals. We indeed ought to welcome gays into our congregations as we do all sinners who are in need of hearing the gospel of God’s love in Christ Jesus.

Abhorrence of a given behavior, including homosexuality, must coexist alongside love for the violators. Jesus demonstrated this perfectly by reaching out to the adulteress, to the tax collectors, and to other sinners that the Pharisees excluded. The person plagued by homosexual temptation should not incite our revulsion and hatred; we should not seek to devalue or ridicule that person, nor ostracize them from our midst. Instead, this person deserves our concern, empathy, help, and understanding.

God bless,
Dan,
Constantly disarmed of any self-righteousness by the Law and saved by God’s superabundant and undeserved Grace, for Christ’s sake alone.
Dan,

I agree that we should not turn these people away, but bring them in and preach the Law and Gospel to them. Show them that God loves them but hates their sin. The problem of sanctioning these activities will be that that Law and Gospel will not be given to them or anyone for that matter because the church will have given them earthly justification rather than Christ's justification.

Too often the ELCA has used a Historical Critical approach to the issues of the day. Thinking that God was only speaking to a specific group of people at a certain time and that it isn't true to today's culture. This is what they teach at the seminaries so it won't surprise me if their study was more of a smoke screen to make it look like they are studying all sides when in fact they want this approved throughout the synod.

In Minnesota over the past 4 years there have been 3 congregations that have publicly ordained an active homosexual as a Pastor in their church. They are betting that the Synod will vote in favor of homosexual ordinations and same sex unions. They have had females as Pastors for 30 years (started in 1970 in ALC). Why should they think that this will be any different?

I am not saying necessarily that every church in the ELCA feels this way. There are evidently many who differ with this study and what the end result may be. If this passes, you could see a larger synod split over the issue. I am not advocating anything here, but to say based on what has happened in the past is there any reason why anyone should believe that the ELCA will vote to do what is scriptural over and above what is politically correct?

[Phoebe]

1 Corinthians 5.

[IowaLutheran]

Nice post, Dan - I agree totally. The "conservatives" who post around the net seem convinced that the vote will go for gay unions and ordination, but I talked to a gay member of another church a few weeks ago who was convinced that the vote would be to retain the status quo (no ordination, no gay union). I tend to think that as much as some segments of the ELCA want to see it happen, they will vote against it in the end because they will not want to split the church. As much as ECUSA has been rocked by their decisions, the impact on the ELCA would be three-fold.

[KagomeShuko]

Nice post, Dan - I agree totally. The "conservatives" who post around the net seem convinced that the vote will go for gay unions and ordination, but I talked to a gay member of another church a few weeks ago who was convinced that the vote would be to retain the status quo (no ordination, no gay union). I tend to think that as much as some segments of the ELCA want to see it happen, they will vote against it in the end because they will not want to split the church. As much as ECUSA has been rocked by their decisions, the impact on the ELCA would be three-fold.
I know that people in my church aren't for ordination of homosexuals, but just welcoming them into the church as Dan said. . .nothing else. And surprisingly, Lake Charles has a huge gay community, so it's not as if we're all old-time Biblical southern frowning upon homosexuality and trying to run them out.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[sculpturegirl]

Dan- I completely agree with you and the quote was especially illuminating (pun hal-intended.) I am completely distressed over the matter. I am in the Metro Washington DC Synod and afterr looking at the ELCA website, it seems that this synod is one of the instigators of bringing the issue to "study."

I am currently reading the study and there feels to be a bent in the discussion, though I think that allowing for discussion is certainly reasonable. I am definitely against targeting one sin/sinner and making it/him/her so much more horrible than the next, but blessing and ordaining is a whole different matter. I fear that the church may split over it and further alienate us from the LCMS. I have heard so many negative comments regarding our Lutheran bretheren in the LCMS at our church and felt deeply saddened by it.

The doorbell is ringing- gotta go.

[SPALATIN]

Dan- I completely agree with you and the quote was especially illuminating (pun hal-intended.) I am completely distressed over the matter. I am in the Metro Washington DC Synod and afterr looking at the ELCA website, it seems that this synod is one of the instigators of bringing the issue to "study."

I am currently reading the study and there feels to be a bent in the discussion, though I think that allowing for discussion is certainly reasonable. I am definitely against targeting one sin/sinner and making it/him/her so much more horrible than the next, but blessing and ordaining is a whole different matter. I fear that the church may split over it and further alienate us from the LCMS. I have heard so many negative comments regarding our Lutheran bretheren in the LCMS at our church and felt deeply saddened by it.

The doorbell is ringing- gotta go.Don't worry about the LCMS. We have enough troubles of our own. The confessional conservatives feel that the current administration of the LCMS wants to direct the synod towards the ELCA and consider their own synod to be heterodox. I am sorry that your brethren feel this way about the LCMS, but I am not surprised.

[sculpturegirl]

Scott- I pointed out my observations to the pastor (who had made some comments in addition to the others). I could see that his eyes were opened a little. He told me of some past hurts between pastors of the different congregations, but I could see some shifts in his thinking. If we (ELCA) are claiming to be so ecumenical then alienating our conservative brothers is certianly hypocritical.

What is going on in the synod now that is moving it towards ELCA?

I am most certainly confessional and feel to be a minority in the cegregation, yet I cannot deny the hearts around me who are so eager to please and serve the Lord.

I finally managed to download the study and am reading it now.

[SPALATIN]

Scott- I pointed out my observations to the pastor (who had made some comments in addition to the others). I could see that his eyes were opened a little. He told me of some past hurts between pastors of the different congregations, but I could see some shifts in his thinking. If we (ELCA) are claiming to be so ecumenical then alienating our conservative brothers is certianly hypocritical.

What is going on in the synod now that is moving it towards ELCA?

I am most certainly confessional and feel to be a minority in the cegregation, yet I cannot deny the hearts around me who are so eager to please and serve the Lord.

I finally managed to download the study and am reading it now.
Quite frankly I don't know that it is moving towards ELCA, but many of the confessional conservatives feel that the Synod President (equal to the Synod Bishop Hanson) is sacrificing much of what was the Missouri Synod to be ecumenical. Yet, when they are asked about some of the issues that the ELCA has embraced (i.e. women's ordination, suffrage) they will say that they do not believe that women should be ordained, but they should have the right to vote if their particular congregation has voted to allow it.

The word Ecumenical can have different meanings like Economics there is a Macro and Micro. Too often we view the word in the Macro which many in the LCMS would say is unionistic or syncretistic. In the micro-ecumenical we could look to find similarities that bind us as Lutherans that we all can hold onto, but the LCMS feels that there are too many areas of disagreement in important areas of faith that they can not agree to any communion agreement. It is sad but true that we can't just all be friends and bury the hatchet on these matters but we are told that compromising on faith matters is not good.

I don't know that I answered your questions very well. I know that as far as this forum goes that the ELCA people here are very confessional and want to get the ELCA back to it's Lutheran roots. I do not nor will I ever think ill of them in any way as Christ died for them as well. I pray that God's will be done in these matters and not those who run it.

[sculpturegirl]

Well said, Scott. I have found that some have very macro views of being ecumenical to include non-christian faiths as well- yikes!

I would agree that I don't feel that women ought to be pastors, but that we are responsible for helping to nourish one another and especially in teaching younger women. I wish that it didn't have to be a struggle of our "rights," and realize it more to be a God-ordered way of doing things. At the same time, I don't think that it is one of the "essentials" in doctrine and try not to put up too much of a stink, but try to live out my own life as a God-fearing woman.

*sigh*

[Protoevangel]

1 Corinthians 5.Thanks Kim, that is a very important chapter in this discussion. Church discipline is another area our church needs to come up to speed in.

Maybe I’m seeing this wrongly, but it seems to me that the man sleeping with his stepmother in that chapter was apparently very open about his sin, much like the problem we see with the homosexuality issue facing us in the ELCA today. The problem was not so much that he was attracted to his stepmother, nor that he slept with her in a moment of weakness. The problem is that he is living this way, and the people of Corinth are proud of themselves, and their forward thinking. I think the few who did speak out and say this was inappropriate were called hateful and bigots.

I think the parallels are powerful, but have little to do with accepting the homosexual into our midst with love, understanding and affection. I kind of like how Eugene Peterson ends this chapter in The Message: “I wrote you in my earlier letter that you shouldn't make yourselves at home among the sexually promiscuous. I didn't mean that you should have nothing at all to do with outsiders of that sort. Or with crooks, whether blue- or white-collar. Or with spiritual phonies, for that matter. You'd have to leave the world entirely to do that! But I am saying that you shouldn't act as if everything is just fine when one of your Christian companions is promiscuous or crooked, is flip with God or rude to friends, gets drunk or becomes greedy and predatory. You can't just go along with this, treating it as acceptable behavior. I'm not responsible for what the outsiders do, but don't we have some responsibility for those within our community of believers? God decides on the outsiders, but we need to decide when our brothers and sisters are out of line and, if necessary, clean house.”

There are many who would probably be better served by the church with a good helping of discipline. The honest homosexual (who may well slip into sin now and again) who accepts the Word of God as authoritative in his or her life is not one of them. All these people who are attempting to controvert, obscure, and emasculate the clear Word of God, on the other hand... ;)

[Protoevangel]

Dan,

I agree that we should not turn these people away, but bring them in and preach the Law and Gospel to them. Show them that God loves them but hates their sin. The problem of sanctioning these activities will be that that Law and Gospel will not be given to them or anyone for that matter because the church will have given them earthly justification rather than Christ's justification.

Too often the ELCA has used a Historical Critical approach to the issues of the day. Thinking that God was only speaking to a specific group of people at a certain time and that it isn't true to today's culture. This is what they teach at the seminaries so it won't surprise me if their study was more of a smoke screen to make it look like they are studying all sides when in fact they want this approved throughout the synod.

In Minnesota over the past 4 years there have been 3 congregations that have publicly ordained an active homosexual as a Pastor in their church. They are betting that the Synod will vote in favor of homosexual ordinations and same sex unions. They have had females as Pastors for 30 years (started in 1970 in ALC). Why should they think that this will be any different?

I am not saying necessarily that every church in the ELCA feels this way. There are evidently many who differ with this study and what the end result may be. If this passes, you could see a larger synod split over the issue. I am not advocating anything here, but to say based on what has happened in the past is there any reason why anyone should believe that the ELCA will vote to do what is scriptural over and above what is politically correct?I agree 110%

[Protoevangel]

Dan- I completely agree with you and the quote was especially illuminating (pun hal-intended.) I am completely distressed over the matter. I am in the Metro Washington DC Synod and afterr looking at the ELCA website, it seems that this synod is one of the instigators of bringing the issue to "study."

I am currently reading the study and there feels to be a bent in the discussion, though I think that allowing for discussion is certainly reasonable. I am definitely against targeting one sin/sinner and making it/him/her so much more horrible than the next, but blessing and ordaining is a whole different matter. I fear that the church may split over it and further alienate us from the LCMS. I have heard so many negative comments regarding our Lutheran bretheren in the LCMS at our church and felt deeply saddened by it.

The doorbell is ringing- gotta go.Read this along with the study guide: http://www.wordalone.com/resources/jepsen/index.htm



It is a commentary/critique of Journey Together Faithfully. Gary does a good job exposing some of the more glaring problems in the guide.

[ctobola]

Nice post, Dan - I agree totally. The "conservatives" who post around the net seem convinced that the vote will go for gay unions and ordination, but I talked to a gay member of another church a few weeks ago who was convinced that the vote would be to retain the status quo (no ordination, no gay union).

IowaLutheran,

Interesting to hear this perspective. I've heard many comment that the ELCA leadership will probably manipulate the issue to pass this, the same way they did with the Episcopal agreement.

Bishop Mark Hansen was in this area a few months ago and kept insisting that the outcome on this matter was not a foregone conclusion. My thought, and what I heard from others, was he "doth protest too much, methinks."

-Cloy

[zjl56]

Ok on this issue if the Church is going to put Pauls teachings into such high place they should atleast follow them. I don't know why this issue hasen't been dismissed in the ElCA since the act is clearly condehmed in Romans.

[sculpturegirl]

What do you mean "has been dismissed?"

[JMRE5150]

What do you mean "has been dismissed?"
I second that question...I'm curious as to what you mean by this myself.

[zjl56]

sorry it was supposed to be hasen't

[cenimo]

Gee, the Episcopalians went through this...it's like all the churches that came out of the Reformation are self-destructing from within.

Just read Romans 1:24-32.
Scripture says what it says, not what any group or any individuals want it to say.

[Music4Hym777]

This is one issue that my fiancee and I debate a lot! We debate a lot of religious things a lot. He is mid-conservative ELCA where as I am extreme conservative ELCA (I belong in the LCMS and go to an open-to-Lutherans-communion LCMS church sometimes).

At least on the issues that I really really really care about we are the same in thinking.