Posted on 08/02/2005 10:54:57 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The nation's largest Lutheran denomination will finally speak with a collective voice this month on whether to allow gay and lesbian pastors and on whether same-sex couples may receive rites of blessing. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, whose biennial Churchwide Assembly meets August 8-14 in Orlando, is one of the last mainline church bodies to act on the controversies. Few figure that the ELCA's debates will end in Orlando.
Preconvention estimates are that it is unlikely two-thirds of the 1,000 delegates—the required margin for approval—will vote to open pulpits to gay pastors, despite a proposal by ELCA leaders that "exceptions" could be created "for the sake of outreach, ministry and the commitment to continuing dialogue."
A second proposal, which needs only a bare majority to pass, says that ELCA policy should bar blessings for couples in same-sex relationships in keeping with a 1993 pastoral letter from ELCA bishops saying that no basis can be found in scripture for such rites.
However, some conservatives complain that the rest of that resolution could be viewed as permitting informal blessings. The proposal asks members to "trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to same-sex couples."
The efforts by ELCA leaders to address gay issues falls short of what legions of Lutherans on the left and right say they expect of the denomination. Traditionalists are looking for policies that clamp down on sporadic, unauthorized ordinations of openly gay clergy. Progressives contend that faithful, nonheterosexual Christians are discriminated against when they are denied full and equal opportunities in the church.
The nearly 5-million-member ELCA, created in 1987 from a three-way church merger, has eluded convention showdowns over homosexuality that have occupied its mainline counterparts for years. The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have repeatedly declined over decades to allow ordination of noncelibate homosexuals. Gay activists and their supporters in those churches vow not to abandon the fight.
Meanwhile, the more liberal Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ have made some bold changes. Many in those churches put today's churchgoing gays and lesbians in a different category from the people condemned in biblical texts. However, Episcopal traditionalists look to overseas Anglicans for support in resisting the changes, and UCC conservatives find succor in congregational autonomy and "renewal" movements.
The mainline convention disputes over homosexuality typically feature demonstrations or picketing and conservative threats to withhold funds or exit the church—but also, at times, cordial discussion and prayerful reconciliation.
So what's next for the ELCA?
"Lutherans are traditionally shy, but when push comes to shove they value healthy relationships above all," says the hot-selling Lutheran Handbook, a sometimes whimsical guide published by Augsburg Fortress this year. "Conflict should be viewed as an opportunity to grow, not a contest for domination," advises the handbook, which went into its fifth printing last month.
When the ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality announced its findings in January, the panel emphasized that it took a "pastoral approach" for the sake of outreach and ongoing dialogue. But the task force was criticized for recommending that the church may "choose to refrain" from punishing congregations for calling as pastors otherwise qualified gay or lesbian candidates.
"It was not well-received," said Stanley Olson, executive director of the ELCA Division for Ministry. "It was perceived as too nebulous."
The approach was recast in April by the 37-member Church Council, which acts as a board of directors between biennial assemblies. The council proposed that instead of withholding disciplinary actions, the church "may permit exceptions to the expectations regarding sexual conduct for gay or lesbian candidates . . . in life-long, committed and faithful same-sex relationships."
The ELCA standard says pastors must be married to someone of the opposite sex or be celibate if single. Under the exception, a premium would be placed on a homosexual minister's "evidence of intent" to live in a faithful partnership.
The ELCA already makes occasional exceptions on ordinations. Normally, a seminary graduate cannot be ordained unless a congregation invites him or her to be a pastor and the minister serves at least three years in pastoral ministry. Exceptions are sometimes made for graduates who have special opportunities in missions, teaching or administration, officials say.
Barbara R. Rossing, associate professor of New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, said that the "exceptions" route "was a brilliant way to go because I think it claims the middle."
In April, Rossing and faculty colleague Ralph W. Klein coauthored a short statement supporting the task force recommendations and getting 63 signatures from those they called "teaching theologians." The statement, now endorsed by more than 100 signers, said the task force recommendations "represent a much-needed and faithful compromise for this moment in the life of the church."
The Klein-Rossing statement took issue with an earlier statement signed by 17 theologians—including Carl E. Braaten, William G. Rusch, William H. Lazareth and Robert W. Jenson—who rejected the task force recommendations on ecclesiastical, pastoral and theological grounds.
The 17 said the task force "advocates a fundamental shift in policy" that would harm the church as "an effective collaborator" with the Lutheran World Federation and would sow "division and disunity at the local level."
One of the 17, Robert Benne of Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia, writing in the July issue of The Lutheran magazine, criticized the recommendation as rewritten by the Church Council.
By allowing exceptions, the proposal "bows to those who believe traditional teaching should be revised," wrote Benne. "It uses the acceptance of divorced and remarried clergy as a parallel to the acceptance of partnered gay clergy . . . a dubious analogy because divorced clergy don't argue that divorce is right and therefore keep divorcing."
Proponents of accepting gays in ministry commonly note that while the churches have found ways to allow divorce and remarriage, despite Jesus' words to the contrary, the same churches resist change on homosexuality, an issue not addressed by Jesus.
Some of the rationale used in April by the Church Council resembled arguments in a joint proposal issued in March by bishops Paul Rogness of St. Paul, Minnesota, and Steven L. Ullestad of Iowa. While there are many in the ELCA, perhaps a majority, who believe homosexual activity is always a sin, the two bishops wrote, there are Lutherans, lay and ordained, "who believe we are at a time in history where we have come to know that homosexuality is a condition, not a choice, but simply a given that is often discovered as a person grows."
To Jeff Johnson, the openly gay pastor of the University Lutheran Chapel at the University of California at Berkeley, "the trajectory of the church is clearly moving in a progressive direction."
His bishop, David G. Mullen, has chosen not to remove at least 13 openly gay, lesbian or bisexual pastors serving in the Sierra Pacific Synod, said Johnson, who cochairs Good Soil, a Lutheran gay alliance. "The current policy of the church really serves no one," Johnson said.
"The progressive wing is frustrated and unsatisfied because the policies intimidate a class of people unjustly," he said. "The conservative wing is frustrated because the policies are inconsistently followed or ignored."
The seven-day assembly in Florida "will decide whether the ELCA fragments in a serious fashion or not," said Roy A. Harrisville III of St. Paul, executive director of the conservative Solid Rock Lutherans group.
"This is our Gene Robinson moment," said Harrisville, referring to turmoil in Anglican churches created in 2003 by the Episcopal Church's approval of the election of a gay man as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire.
The Merit Badge Fair church site has links to the ELCA, so it's probably ELCA, but doesn't appear to proclaim it loudly.
Your troop meeting (and I assume its chartering org.) church is LCMS, and boldly noted.
The LCMS view of other denominaitons and religions is here:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2135
"How come the Orthodox get a free pass all the time?"
It works both ways, or all ways. The MSM does not even see, much less comprehend, Orthodox Christianity except as something "ethnic" (strange food, strange customs, strange language). So when the MSM says anything about Orthodox Christianity, it's usually to fit these preconceptions.
Admittedly, I have made the mistake in the past of assuming every professing, born-again Christian believes the Bible is complete and inerrant and entirely under God's sovereignty. It is rare that I find one who doesn't.
Keep looking...
I know that they ordain homosexuals and recently promoted one to the office of bishop (some kind of a regional leadership position). I thought that might be important to you.
But, if not, and the important thing really is whether or not you'll still get to use the fine facilities of the ELCA once it finally decides to ordain homosexuals, so be it, and forget that I even asked the question.
I do really wonder how this will impact the Scouts.
All right then. What do you do with 1 Cor 14:34-35, and on what grounds? Help me out here. I'm just trying to understand your beliefs. Mine are pretty simple (Let Scripture interpret Scripture).
Well, I don't have a basis for knowing whether most born-again Christians agree with sola scriptura and inerrancy, but I suspect most do. I see most left-leaning denominations as highly interpretive, led by historical-critical bible study (i.e. That was a bunch of men in old times, but this is now and we're smarter, diverse, scientific, etc.).
Forgive me, but I honestly can't remember the difference (if I remember right, doesn't patristic have to do with the early Church fathers?)
"'I repeat, this was patristic material, not scholastic.'
Forgive me, but I honestly can't remember the difference (if I remember right, doesn't patristic have to do with the early Church fathers?)"
Scholastic = Reasoned thinking utilizing Greek philosophy of Aristotle or Plotinus. The first school men or scholastics were Anselm, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus.
Patristic = Teaching of the fathers of the Church. Even later eastern fathers (post A.D. 1054), such as St. Joseph of Optina, avoided scholastic thinking in favor of re-stating previous teaching already on the books. In other words, patristic thinking shows consistency rather than development.
So, a scholastic might come up with a logic for ordaining women or homosexuals. A patrilogist would instead find statements in the fathers, e.g. St. John of Damascus, in support of a position. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not possible to arrive at a new position. If a position is "new" it's automatically and without question a heresy.
Orthodoxy leaves the pervert very little room, if any, to advance his case. But as others have pointed out, an attempt is being made by factions such as Axios and by certain well entrenched individuals.
Remember, we are dealing with the demonic and nobody has ever accused the devil of being stupid. He is shown with wings to indicate his incredible intellectual speed. No individual, no denomination, and no jurisdiction is beyond his ability to attack it. Nevertheless, our Lord has promised that despite all of that, even the gates of hell(death) shall never prevail against the Church.
Looks like their synod (NWW) leans hard left. They're probably a typical, sleepy little ELCA congregation of mostly conservatives that hope the wolf won't knock on their door.
Scouts can help remind them about some good moral choices and the futures of our boys.
We're holding firm while other (liberal) Lutheran synods go wobbly.
Leni
one more thing...the ping list I maintain has at any moment an opportunity to critique me and call into question the way I handle myself. You see, I am held to a higher standard, I submit myself to accountability.
Please do not continue this.
I'm not sure that's an issue for Council to address. As for you and the Troop in the mean time follow the National Scout rules closely and you should be ok.
But haven't lady pastors been extreme cultural liberals ? Haven't they been a corrupting, seditious influence ?
"its better to still have people led to the Lord under a woman's tutelage rather than send them to hell."
"Likewise, one could say it's better to still have people led to the Lord under a sodomite's tutelage rather than send them to hell.
Right?"
Gosh, one could almost take this line of argument to say "It's better to still have people led to the Lord under a Pope's tutelage than a woman's or a sodomite's, rather than send them to Hell."
But that's going too far, isn't it...
If your point is to say that none of the three satisfies the Scriptural basis for church leadership, you're absolutely right.
Doesn't "Axios" in California (apparently its only real "stronghold") blame "fundamentalist Protestants" who converted to Orthodoxy for the anti-"gay" stance of the Orthodox Church? Maybe they can blame the Lutherans who convert to Orthodoxy next!! We're a sturdier bunch, and more like cradle Orthodox.
Evangelical Catholic and Evangelical Orthodox Lutherans say that the "gay" issue has already been setted as well, and is certainly nothing to vote on! If only our fellow ELCA Lutherans would listen to us. The issue of the new liturgical materials and hymnal essentially asks the CWA to vote on confessing the Father Son and Holy Spirit, or using some "alternative language" in the liturgy. That's already been settled as well!!!!
This church must be in really bad shape when they need to take a vote on whether they should follow God or not.
I would say to them:
"Joshua 1:
16": And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go.
Really. I guess it's the medium. My intent is always to respond in a manner at least slightly better than the manner in which I've been addressed.
Once I offered that we misjudged our intentions and should let it go. Second I offered to end this after the prompting of another Christian.
Come now. Surely you understand how common courtesy dictates that, whenever you address a comment to someone, he always has the option of responding. You don't just lob some parting shot and expect by your saying "we disagree" or "I got to end this with you" (or even, "please don't continue this"), you have ensured your parting shot must be the last word, do you? If you want to end it, simply end it without taking a parting shot.
You may just need to move on without fully understanding...so sorry.
Are you, really?
Third you continually label me as some non-Bible believing Christian. I have never called into question the authority of scripture.
Continually? You say you know the Bible at the same time you say you have no problem when an entire denomination disregards a portion of it, as long as it produces some good. I responded with an (on-topic) example of the same sort, and you came back with your you-must-think-women-and-homos-are-equal gem. In response to that apparent strawman of yours -- surely you couldn't really think that's what I believe! -- I erected one of my own (the one where I said you must think the Bible is outdated and irrelevant). Only later did it turn out your strawman wasn't meant to be a strawman at all; you really thought I could have the same regard for women and homos. Incredible.
To suggest that is ridiculous beyond comparison. You have no idea....and in fact if you think you do. You are wrong.
You said you believe it. Fine. I just asked what you, a Bible-believing Christian, does with a "difficult" part of the Bible directly related to the topic which we were discussing ('we' as in you and me, not just me by myself). If you're not into it, so be it. Just say so.
I must be the first Christian youve met that has disagreed with you on something. Well get used to it.
Likewise, I have to wonder if... no, make that I must be the first Christian you've met who wants to discuss a 'difficult' passage of the Bible.
I have repeatedly tried to be careful as to not let the immature Christian stumble.
Huh? What are you talking about? Are you saying if it wasn't for the fact that some onlooker might be made to stumble, you'd post something rotten to me?
I tire of it.
When you've had some rest, feel free to get back to me.
If you want to think that all women should keep their mouths shut in church...have at it. I dont think its that way.
Well, well, well! Believe it or not, when I hit the Post button the last time, asking you what to do with that Bible passage, it occurred to me you might respond like that. Instead of saying what you do with it, it occurred to me you just might make some half-baked guess about what I must think... just like you did back when you came up with that line about how I must think women and homos are equal. Sure enough, you did exactly that. So, I give you credit for predictability.
I am not going to create a Bible study out of this topic...youve done a fine job already of bringing this thread off-topic.
Hold on now. If you'll refer back to your post #36, you'll see where you're the one who stated a preference for male leaders but, contrary to what "the Bible states" ... "chick-pastors are entirely acceptable" to you. So, when exactly did I singlehandedly take the thread off-topic?
I prefer not to continue unedifying discussions.
"Unedifying"? When we finally get to a simple, reasonable, hospitable question about a specific Bible passage, you respond with a rant and declare the discussion "unedifying." This is too funny.
We're interpreting scripture differently. It happens. Move on.
I'll be happy to. Keep in mind what I said above about the "parting shot."
There is no error in scripture, there is no confusion in scripture, there is no confliction within scripture.
Yes, I know.
one more thing...the ping list I maintain has at any moment an opportunity to critique me and call into question the way I handle myself. You see, I am held to a higher standard, I submit myself to accountability.
Great.
If you're ever so inclined as to tell me how you deal with 1 Cor 14:34-35, feel free to do so. Until then, stop trying to guess how I "interpret" it. Okay?
Please do not continue this.
Now that I've posted my response to your rant, that's entirely up to you. The ball is again in your court. Respond as you wish. I sincerely look forward to it. It's your right. I cannot imagine being so presumptuous as to demand the last word (much less trying to pass off said demand as a polite request {grin}).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.