Posted on 01/25/2012 12:26:47 PM PST by SmithL
Berwyn, IL — After years of declining membership, two Lutheran churches in Berwyn recently were forced to merge.
While the new church faces many issues as it struggles to adapt to modern society, no one seems to have any qualms about the new pastor, the Rev. Julie Boleyn, who was ordained Jan. 14.
Calm, charismatic and serene in the strength of her faith, Boleyn also is the first lesbian to be ordained in the Greater Metropolitan Chicago Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
For several years, both the United Berwyn Lutheran Church and the First Lutheran Church of Berwyn — the two congregations that merged to create Unity Lutheran Church of Berwyn — were known for as “reconciling in Christ” churches that accepted openly gay and lesbian people as members.
So when it came time to call on a new pastor for Unity Lutheran, their leader’s orientation wasn’t an issue. Instead, the congregation looked at the leadership qualities of each candidate, said Wayne Parthun, a council member for the new church.
“I think you have to look at the realities of life today. It's just the idea that, let's look at what this person brings. Their orientation, private-life wise, it's not an issue,” Parthun said. “Nobody even flinched when the recommendation was made.”
Boleyn, 36, has been married to her partner since 2004, and the couple has a 3-year-old daughter. And her ordination has not only been handled with complete acceptance, but a welcome indifference, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysuburbanlife.com ...
Thanks for the welcome info on the LCMS; may they stay strong.
” . . .. but misses the Gospel by a country mile, . . ..”
I thank God for your compelling truthful witness, brother Dutchboy. In remarkably few words, you spoke volumes.
So we've gone from two dwindling churches to one.
It would be fascinating to chat with Martin Luther and define the differences between her faith and his.
Claims of reality do not make them so.
your anti Catholic screed has all the talking points intact, the main problem is that they are a distortion of what Catholics actually believe.
It reminds me of Father Groeschel commenting that if he thought the Catholic church believed in all these things he would oppose it too.
Curious...which of those errant doctrines does Rome not promulgate?
Rev. Dr. William Gafkjen, ELCA bishop of the Indiana-Kentucky synod:
What does your job [as bishop] entail?
"I assumed the role at a time when there was a lot turmoil in the denomination; in this synod we have lost almost 10 percent of the congregations. A lot of it has been interacting with congregations during their discernment of whether to stay with this denomination. As a synod in transition, we're spending a lot of time gathering up and casting vision, talking about what it means to be a church for the world."
"Gathering up and casting vision""? "Church for the world"? ELCAspeak at its most fraudulently unctuous.
Sounds like they’re CASTING a hexagram, to “consult” the I Ching:
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/learn/consult/yarrow.php
With all that New Age stuff that ELCA members inevitably resort to, that’s a possibility!
Since the ELCA has become hollowed out and empty spiritually, it tends to emphasize politics, and act as a “ ‘church’ for the world”. Meanwhile, its members often resort to New Age balderdash to attempt to fill the void.
I speak from experience. I am a former ELCA member who became Orthodox. In the Orthodox Church, we come to Divine Liturgy not to hear about God, but to experience Him for ourselves. It really, really happens!!!!
I worship in two Orthodox parishes, one OCA and the other Serbian. My OCA parish was “forced” to expand its facilities several years before I became Orthodox. More recently, my Serbian parish was “forced” to move into a new facility about five times the size of the old one!!!!
There is an LCMS parish in a neighboring town that also was “forced” to expand its facilities.
Of course, “forced” is not the right word to use.
So it goes.
What else could be expected with an ancient faith with modern relevance?
all of your charges are distortions of belief.
And although it is easy to correct lies, for distortions it takes a longer explanation to show the subtle twisting that results in the charges.
For example: Catholic worship mary
Well, Catholics and Orthodox christians have honored Mary since about 200 AD (I’d have to link to the church fathers here) and then I would have to explain how catholics define worship (e.g. the mass, where we offer the body and blood of Christ to God) not just hymns and prayers.
Singing a hymn to Mary is no more “worship” for a catholic than singing the Notre Dame fight song is woshiping football.
Then I would have to define the differences between limited honor we give for men we admire including the saints and our honor of God.
Then I would have to point out the linguistic meaning of the word “pray”, which in the past merely meant to ask or supplicate for a favor. e.g. Pray tell me sir is a phrase in Shakespeare.
Then I would have to point out the scripture that tells us that we have a crowd of witnesses helping us, implying that those in heaven are aware of us.
And then I would have to quote James and point out that not only are we allowed to ask folks to pray for us, but that asking the prayer of a holy man is especially helpful.
Then I would have to explain to you the concept of “communion of saints” that means the christian family includes those in heaven and those of us on earth linked as one family.
Finally, I would have to point out to you that many of the doctrines about Mary are actually about Jesus.
For example, by stressing she was the “mother of god” is more about the reality of Jesus being both God and Man, at a time when the Arians and others were insisting that Jesus was a demigod like Hercules, not God.
Indeed, even Elizabeth said “why would the mother of my Lord come to help me”...essentially recognizing that Mary had a baby who was God inside her womb at that time Mary was only a few weeks pregnant.
Etc. etc.
This is a blow for all Christians — not just Lutherans.
I agree with you Cronos that this is bad. However, just because you call a cow a dog does not make it a dog.
This is not a church. Jesus called it “My Church”. And there is no doubt reading Paul in Romans 1 that those who accept homosexuality are worshipping the created rather than the creator. You can even mumble along using the word “jesus”, but there is a real Jesus. And this is not Him.
It’s a club. Make no mistake about why they had to merge two congregations to form this club. It happened because the other two lesbian-friendly clubs were dying, and if the disease remains uncured, this one, too, will stumble along.
They pretend about a god being there, but that’s as irrational as their pretending that these two women have produced a child. They exalt falsehood.
“who accept homosexuality”
I don’t think it is merely accepting. I can accept a lesbian pastor. If you are going to allow a woman pastor against scripture, why not a lesbian?
The problem is that they start to worship their “tolerance” instead of God.
Your point is that if they are going to accept one unbiblical thing, then why not two. I have no problem with that.
When we know we’re wrong it is first critical that we acknowledge we are wrong. (The bald-faced sin here is these women saying “God is wrong on this, and we are right.” That is self-worship, isn’t it?)
It is next the time to begin changing the wrong, fighting it in ourselves, never denying its wrongness, and always striving to do things God’s way instead of our way.
Our churches are full of homosexual church leaders, especially in music. The problem is that too many pastors are reluctant to condemn the sins within the church and instead focus on sins outside the church. We condemn the sin of “ignoring the homeless” and “not helping the poor”. Ambiguous stuff like that.
And in an odd twist, we don’t love homosexuals. We tolerate them. Ooohh....Yay us.
I don't think so, these people are caricatures. Once they may have had faith, now this.
"Why Catholics Pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary
Many non-Catholics have been trained from childhood to believe that one of the clear proofs of the falsity of Catholicism is to be found in the honor that is paid to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church, and in the innumerable trusting prayers that are offered to her by Catholics. At the same time it is true that many non-Catholics, when they learn what are the genuine foundations of Catholic devotion to Mary , are drawn by it so irresistibly that. ultimately they become Catholics. For the truth is very simple and clear, and is all contained in the following two truths.
1. Mary is the Mother of God. Catholics do not believe that God was bound by any compulsion to have a Mother; they believe that He chose to have a Mother and all that this implies. He chose to permit His human body to be formed in her womb.
He chose to permit her to bring Him forth as a tiny baby into the world. He chose to let her feed Him at her breast, carry Him in her arms, guard Him from danger, and teach Him as any child would be taught, to walk and speak and pray. He thereby chose to grant Mary a power over Him that only love can bestow. Catholics believe that in choosing a mother, the Son of God chose to grant her the power over His will that the love of a good mother always wields over a good son.
2. Mary is a mother to all men. Catholics believe that the Son of God chose to come into the world through a mother in order that that mother might accept as His brothers all the children of the sinful race of man. He set an example as to how she should be honored and loved. He prepared her for this motherhood of all by asking her to suffer every conceivable form of pain, thus teaching her sympathy for the sorrows of her children. Had she been His Mother alone, He would have spared her from pain, because He had the power to do so and because He loved her with an infinite love. He wrought His first public miracle at her request, and when He was dying He reminded her that she had been destined from the beginning to be a Mother to all. Catholics therefore believe that Mary will be as eager to help them, in troubles of soul and body, as every natural mother is eager to promote the welfare of her child.
The rosaries that Catholics recite are but the expression of their belief in these two truths. They know that if Mary speaks to her Divine Son in their behalf, there can be no doubt about their receiving an answer to their prayers."
These folks take a different view of Mary worship than you do. But, the Catholic claim that Mary is the Mother of all men is nonsense. And, your attempt to spin "praying" in a different light than these folks take do doesn't work.
"Then I would have to point out the linguistic meaning of the word “pray”, which in the past merely meant to ask or supplicate for a favor. e.g. Pray tell me sir is a phrase in Shakespeare."
Not sure if you are new around here, but Mariolatry is a well-documentd Catholic error. Your comparison does not apply. The word "up" has dozens of meanings, but the definition of the word "pray" in the Catholic Tradition org website is the definition of prayer which the Bible reserves to God, alone. That Mary is considered a co-redemptrix and able to answer prayer (real prayer) reveals this heresy. Soft peddling the incorrect reverence does not change this.
The veneration of "Saints" (with a capital S) is another error you attempt to minimize. You use a small "s", the way the Scripture considers all real believers in Christ to be saints (holy ones). Saint Bruno was not canonized by virtue of being a believer along with all other believers. This "tier" rating is unbiblical and a heresy. Smoozing the incorrect veneration does not change this.
There is no biblical support for a eucharistic view of the bread and wine. Jesus simply said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He was making a point that His blood and His body would be the solution to our deep needs, He was not converting the "elements" into real flesh and blood. To claim that now a man in bathrobe can say some words over the cup and transubstantiate it into the real blood of Christ (even mystically) is beyond the pale. Such is found nowhere in Scripture. Smearing the edges of a faulty claim does not change this.
I notice you did not attempt to justify sacerdotalism, papalism, indulgences or any of the other heretical positions of Rome. Rome has lost its way. But, not every person involved with Catholicism is lost, but that is in spite of Rome, not because of Rome.
one: you quote from an extremeist “traditional” group in the church, not from the Catholic catechism.
Why not use a mainstream Catholic quote?
I suggest you are constructing what is called in logic a “straw man” argument: Find someone on the fringe, pretend the represent the whole group, twist their words, and then smash it down with your brilliance.
It’s bad enough when liberals do this to the tea party, so I am puzzled when you are doing it.
Two: Their explanation is in complicated language, understandable only to pre vatican II catholics who understand the meaning of the words. Heck, even I have trouble following their argument.
Many of the words have several meanings or nuances. A protestant would interpret the words differently, as I pointed out in my first post. When two people use different definitions of the same word, discussing things is impossible.
Three: Mary is the “mother of all men” because when Jesus died, he told John “here is your mother”.
We interpret this as giving Mary to all of us as a spiritual mother, because we figure she cares and prays for all Christians even though she is in heaven, just as we mothers pray for our children and grandchildren, and I’m sure my earthly mother is in heaven and is praying for me.
Then there is a concept of “spiritual motherhood” that is not limited to Mary: women who teach or nurse or cook or clean for non relatives are spiritual mothers to their children.
So I am not just a doctor, but a spiritual “mother” to the children I care for, the mothers who I deliver, the sick I treat, and I often pray for them.
The holiness of the eucharist is found in Paul’s works in Corinthians and in Jesus’ sayings in John. If you read the bible, you will be familiar with them.
We catholics are bemused that those who interpret everything in the bible literally then ignore the passages passages where Jesus said he’d give us his body and blood to eat and drink. Catholics and Orthodox churches always believed it, the early church fathers believed it, and even Luther believed it. The exact nature of how the miracle occurs is different in different churches, but was not rejected until late in the reformation, and that rejection has more to do with scientific skepticism than with scripture.
As for the rest of the stuff: Please. I have a life to live.
but I will pray for you.
You obviously don’t want to find out what Catholics believe.
And you seem to think only catholics believe these things: If Rome has lost it’s way, so has Constantinople and Moscow, since Orthodoxy believe the same things. So a billion Catholics and a half billion Orthodox Christians are all wrong...
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.